Sami Itshaik

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION
In re:
SAMI ITSHAIK, 	Case No. 25-24251-SMG
Debtor. 	Chapter 7
________________________________/
ORDER APPOINTING TAREK K. KIEM, ESQ.
AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR DEBTOR SAMI ITSHAIK
This matter came before the Court for hearing on July 8, 2026 on the Court’s
Order (I) 	Directing 	the Appointment 	of 	a Guardian 	Ad 	Litem 	for the Debtor,
(II) Requiring Submission of Candidates, and (III) Setting Hearing.1 For the reasons
discussed below, the Court will overrule the objection of Shaun Itshaik,2 and will
appoint Tarek K. Kiem, Esq. as guardian ad litem for debtor Sami Itshaik, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1004.1(b).
1 Dkt. No. 141.
2 Dkt. No. 160.
Scott M. Grossman, Chief Judge
United States Bankruptcy Court	_____________________________________________________________________________
ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on July 14, 2026.
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 1 of 17

2
I. 	Background.
A. 	The Debtor’s Bankruptcy Filings.
Debtor Sami Itshaik commenced this bankruptcy case by filing a pro se petition
under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on December 2, 2025.3 This was his second
bankruptcy filing in this district. Approximately thirteen months before this case, on
November 21, 2024, Mr. Itshaik had filed a pro se petition under chapter 13 of the
Bankruptcy Code.4 That case was dismissed less than three weeks later, after he
failed to timely file his schedules of assets and liabilities and other related forms.5
In this case as well, Mr. Itshaik again did not initially file his schedules of
assets and liabilities and other related forms.6 The clerk of court then gave him notice
that if these delinquencies were not cured by December 16, 2025, his case may be
dismissed.7 On December 15, 2025, he moved for a 30-day extension of this deadline.8
In his motion, he represented that he is appearing pro se in the matter and is
receiving assistance from his son, Sharon (also referred to as Shaun). The motion goes
on to state that:
4. 	The Debtor suffers from cognitive decline as a result of a stroke
he suffered. This medical condition has significantly impaired the
Debtor’s 	memory, 	particularly 	regarding 	historical 	financial
information and past transactions.
5. 	Due 	to 	the 	Debtor’s 	cognitive 	impairment 	and 	memory
difficulties, he requires substantial assistance to recall and compile the
3 Dkt. No. 1.
4 Case No. 24-22187-SMG.
5 Id. at Dkt. No. 13.
6 Dkt. No. 6.
7 Id.
8 Dkt. No. 14.
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 2 of 17

3
detailed financial information necessary to accurately complete the
bankruptcy schedules and statements.
6. 	The Debtor’s son, Sharon, is assisting the Debtor in collecting all
necessary documentation, reviewing historical records, and gathering
the 	information 	required 	to 	properly 	and 	accurately 	complete 	the
schedules. This process is time-consuming given the Debtor’s medical
condition and limitations.
7. 	The Debtor is committed to filing complete and accurate schedules
and 	statements, 	but 	requires 	additional 	time 	to 	ensure 	that 	all
information 	is 	properly 	gathered 	and 	verified 	given 	his 	medical
limitations.9
The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion, extending his
deadline only to December 31, 2025.10 On December 31, Mr. Itshaik timely filed
bankruptcy schedules,11 but he failed to file his statement of financial affairs,
statement of current monthly income, and payment advices.12 Because he failed to
cure all deficiencies by the court-ordered December 31 deadline, on January 15, 2026,
the Court then dismissed this case.13
The schedules he filed disclosed two single-family homes in Brooklyn, New
York – 1052 E. 57 th Street and 1138 E. 57 th Street. For both properties, which the
debtor listed on his Schedule A/B, he stated, “on my name but not mine.”14 Other than
these two properties, $600 in cash, and 100% interests in “rjg cab corp,” “hot express
cab corp,” and “best express cab corp,” he listed no other assets. He did not claim any
property as exempt. He also listed no creditors at all – no secured claims, no priority
9 Id. at 2 (emphasis added).
10 Dkt. No. 15.
11 Dkt. No. 21.
12 Dkt. No. 25.
13 Id.
14 Dkt. No. 21, at 4.
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 3 of 17

4
unsecured claims, and no general unsecured claims. In fact, other than listing the
two Brooklyn properties, the three cab corporations, and the $600 in cash, his
schedules are essentially blank. Likewise, his summary of assets and liabilities lists
“$0” on each line.
On January 22, 2026, chapter 7 trustee Marc P. Barmat timely moved15 for
relief from the dismissal order under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9023.16
In his motion, the trustee represented as follows:
4. 	The Trustee reached out to the pro se debtor and his adult son
and was advised the debtor will cure the above deficiencies by the filing
of the required documents. It is anticipated that by the time this matter
is scheduled for hearing before the Court, the deficiencies will be cured.
5. 	Reinstatement of this case is appropriate under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a)
and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9023, as the dismissal
resulted from procedural deficiencies that have been or will be cured and
reinstatement will permit proper administration of the estate.
6. 	The Trustee has identified matters requiring investigation and
administration that warrant reinstatement for the benefit of creditors.
7. 	No party will be prejudiced by reinstatement. Reinstatement will
allow the Trustee to perform statutory duties under 11 U.S.C. § 704.17
The trustee served his motion and the notice of hearing on his motion on the
debtor at the mailing address listed on his bankruptcy petition.18 Neither the debtor,
nor his son, nor any other person on his behalf appeared at the hearing on the
trustee’s motion. Counsel for secured creditor Valley National Bank, however, did
15 Dkt. No. 30.
16 Rule 9023 incorporates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.
17 Dkt. No. 30.
18 Dkt. No. 32; see Dkt. No. 1, at 2.
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 4 of 17

5
appear and supported the trustee’s motion. The Court then granted the motion on
February 19, 2026,19 thus vacating the dismissal order and reinstating this case.
B. 	The Creditors and Their Claims.
Valley National Bank’s claim arises from the debtor’s guaranties of loans to his
taxicab companies. Valley National Bank asserts a $7,183,126.17 claim against the
debtor, which it contends is secured by the two Brooklyn properties pursuant to four
2022 New York state court judgments.20 According to Valley National Bank’s proof of
claim, the two Brooklyn properties are collectively worth $1.8 million.21 Thus, Valley
National Bank’s claim consists of a $1.8 million secured claim, and a $5,383,126.17
unsecured claim.22
Valley National Bank also holds a May 7, 2025 New York state court judgment
against Sami Itshaik; 1052 East 57 th Street Trust, Sami Itshaik, Trustee; and 1138
East 57 th Street Trust, Sami Itshaik, Trustee; avoiding and setting aside transfers of
the two Brooklyn properties pursuant to certain “Correction Deeds,” and declaring
that Valley National Bank’s four underlying judgments are liens against these two
Brooklyn properties.23
In addition to Valley National Bank’s claim, four other creditors filed proofs of
claim in this case – JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., with a $2,718.54 unsecured claim;24
DePalma Acquisition I LLC, with a $4,491,228.98 unsecured claim;25 American
19 Dkt. No. 41.
20 Claim No. 4-1.
21 Id.
22 Id.; see 11 U.S.C. § 506(a).
23 Claim No. 4-1, at 22-25.
24 Claim No. 1-1.
25 Claim No. 2-1.
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 5 of 17

6
Express National Bank, with a $234.39 unsecured claim;26 and Tower Capital
Management Servicer NYCTL 2025−A Trust with a $57,504.63 secured claim based
on a tax lien certificate.27 Although it did not file a proof of claim, early on in the case,
creditor Santander Consumer USA Inc. also appeared to seek stay relief to repossess
a 2020 Jeep Grand Cherokee that the debtor did not return after his lease had
matured on February 5, 2024.28 The Court granted that motion on January 14,
2026.29
C. 	Sharon “Shaun” Itshaik’s Motion to Dismiss.
About one month after the Court reinstated this case – and roughly four
months after the petition date – the debtor’s son, Shaun Itshaik, as next friend, moved
to dismiss the case, asserting that his father was medically incompetent and
incapable of participating in the case,30 based on allegations that debtor Sami Itshaik
has “permanent, structural neurological damage to the bilateral hippocampus – the
region of the brain principally responsible for memory.”31 Both the trustee and Valley
National Bank opposed the motion.32 The trustee argued that under Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 1016 a debtor’s incompetency does not abate a chapter 7
case,33 but that the trustee would not object to waiving the remainder of the
requirements for a chapter 7 debtor’s participation in his case.34
26 Claim No. 3-1.
27 Claim No. 5-1.
28 Dkt. No. 18.
29 Dkt. No. 24.
30 Dkt. No. 47.
31 Id. at 2.
32 Dkt. Nos. 53, 54.
33 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1016(a).
34 Dkt. No. 53, at 3-4.
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 6 of 17

7
Valley National Bank joined in the trustee’s opposition.35 It argued that:
1. 	In addition to joining with the Trustee’s Response, Creditor would
also state that Debtor has engaged in a long history of efforts to thwart
the legitimate efforts of Creditor including fraudulent conveyances and
other dilatory tactics. In fact, the very filing of this case was an attempt
to stop Creditor from realizing on its substantial claims which the
Debtor now sees as a tactical error which he seeks to undo by this
competency tactic.
2. 	Creditor believes the only way that creditors will ever see any
recovery is by the continued jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court
preventing 	the 	delay 	of 	further 	fraudulent 	conveyances 	and
obstreperous litigation.
3. 	An experienced trustee such as Mr. Barmat can efficiently and
effectively bring recovery to the creditors and his continued involvement
is in the best interest of the creditors and the estate.36
In advance of the hearing on his motion to dismiss the case, Shaun Itshaik filed
a reply brief in which he argued – for the first time – that this chapter 7 bankruptcy
case was void at the outset because the debtor lacked cognitive capacity at the time
of filing.37 At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, however, Shaun Itshaik made a
critical admission – that he actually assisted his father in filing the case that he is
now seeking to dismiss. This admission negated for the Court any notion that the
filing was unauthorized, and so for the reasons stated on the record at the March 25,
2026 hearing, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.38 Shaun Itshaik has appealed
that order.39
35 Dkt. No. 54.
36 Id. at 1.
37 Dkt. No. 56, at 2-6.
38 Dkt. No. 60.
39 Dkt. No. 66. Shaun Itshaik, as appellant, has not ordered the transcript of the March 25, 2026
hearing, and under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009(b)(1) his deadline to do so has since
expired.
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 7 of 17

8
D. 	Shaun Itshaik’s Motion to Remove the Trustee.
Shaun Itshaik, again proceeding as next friend for debtor Sami Itshaik, then
sought to remove the trustee.40 After a hearing on June 10, 2026,41 the Court denied
that motion on three independent grounds.42 First, while a next friend may constitute
the real party in interest for purposes of seeking relief on behalf of another, a next
friend who is not himself an attorney may not appear pro se and instead must retain
counsel to prosecute the requested relief. Because Shaun Itshaik was not appearing
through counsel, his motion was procedurally deficient on that basis alone. Second,
even if the debtor or his next friend had been represented by counsel, an individual
debtor in an insolvent chapter 7 case lacks standing to seek the trustee’s removal. In
this case, the only material assets are the two Brooklyn properties, worth (according
to Valley National Bank) approximately $1.8 million. A total of $11,734,812.71 in
claims have been filed in the case, consisting of $1,857,504.63 in secured claims and
$9,877,308.08 	in 	unsecured 	claims. 	In 	addition, 	the 	estate 	continues 	to 	incur
administrative expenses, which have steadily increased as a result of extensive
litigation. Thus, there is no reasonable possibility in this case of the trustee
recovering sufficient assets to pay all claims in full.43 In a chapter 7 case, it is only
40 Dkt. No. 111.
41 Dkt. No. 126.
42 Dkt. No. 159, at 16:11-34:20.
43 Although Shaun Itshaik disputes the amount of Valley National Bank’s claim, there does not appear
to be any dispute that Valley National Bank is owed significantly more than the two Brooklyn
properties are worth. As such, without Valley National Bank’s consent to a “carveout” from its
collateral, liquidation of the Brooklyn properties would not yield any proceeds from which to pay
administrative expenses or make any distribution to general unsecured creditors. Valley National
Bank has therefore agreed to a carveout equal to 15% of the gross sales proceeds of each of the Brooklyn
properties for the benefit of the estate, plus payment of the trustee’s statutory commission under 11
U.S.C. § 326. The Court approved that carveout over Shaun Itshaik’s objection, by order entered on
April 29, 2026. Dkt. No. 107.
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 8 of 17

9
after payment in full of all claims, with interest, that an individual debtor would be
entitled to any distribution. As a result, the debtor lacks any pecuniary interest in
the trustee’s administration of the estate and therefore lacks standing to seek his
removal. And finally, on the merits,44 the Court concluded there was no basis to
remove the trustee. Shaun Itshaik appealed that ruling as well.45
E. 	The Trustee’s Motion to Extend Time to Object to the Debtor’s Discharge
and Appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem.
Also set for hearing on June 10, 2026 was the trustee’s motion to extend his
deadline to object to the debtor receiving a discharge.46 As the Court explained at the
hearing, an individual chapter 7 case essentially proceeds on two tracks.47 Track one
is the individual’s pursuit of a discharge of his debts, which is usually the goal of an
individual filing a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Track two is the trustee’s collection
and liquidation of assets to pay creditors. To date, all the concerns raised by Shaun
Itshaik pertained to track two – the trustee’s collection and liquidation of assets to
pay creditors – as to which, the Court explained, the debtor or anyone purporting to
act on his behalf lacked standing to take issue.
But now that the trustee sought an extension of time to object to the debtor’s
discharge, track one – as to which the debtor does have standing – was implicated.
Because it was the first request for an extension that is routinely granted in nearly
44 See 11 U.S.C. § 324 (“The court, after notice and a hearing, may remove a trustee, other than the
United States trustee, or an examiner, for cause.”).
45 Dkt. No. 145. By order entered on July 9, 2026, however, that appeal was dismissed because the
appellant failed to timely file a statement of issues and designation of record, as required by Federal
Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009. See Dkt. No. 162.
46 Dkt. No. 117.
47 Dkt. No. 159, at 35:1-23. See also In re Murray, 2026 WL 376350, at *2 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2026).
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 9 of 17

10
every case,48 the Court granted the trustee’s motion.49 At that same time, the Court
determined that the concerns raised by Shaun Itshaik as to his father’s capacity –
while not sufficient to warrant dismissal of the case or removal of the trustee – did at
this juncture warrant an inquiry into whether a guardian ad litem needed to be
appointed under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1004.1, to protect the debtor’s
interests. After raising the issue, both the trustee and Valley National Bank conceded
the facts necessary for the Court to order the appointment of a guardian ad litem,
thus obviating the need for an evidentiary hearing to determine the debtor’s
competence.
II. 	The Selection Process.
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1004.1 specifically contemplates a
bankruptcy petition being filed by an incompetent debtor. It states as follows:
(a) Represented Infant or Incompetent Person. If an infant or an
incompetent person has a representative-such as a general guardian,
committee, conservator, or similar fiduciary-the representative may file
a voluntary petition on behalf of the infant or incompetent person.
(b) Unrepresented Infant or Incompetent Person. If an infant or an
incompetent person does not have a representative:
(1) a next friend or guardian ad litem may file the petition; and
(2) the court must appoint a guardian ad litem or issue any other
order needed to protect the interests of the infant debtor or
incompetent debtor.50
Thus, the rule specifically contemplates that an individual need not be competent to
file a bankruptcy petition. In fact, case law supports the notion that an individual
48 See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4004(b)(1).
49 Dkt. No. 139.
50 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1004.1 (emphasis added).
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 10 of 17

11
should not be deprived of the protections of the Bankruptcy Code due to mental
incompetence.51
So, in order to provide the opportunity for an incompetent person to file for
bankruptcy, Rule 1004.1 provides two options. First, if the incompetent individual
already had a representative – such as a general guardian, committee, conservator,
or similar fiduciary – that representative may file a voluntary bankruptcy petition on
behalf of the incompetent person.52 Alternatively, where the incompetent person does
not already have a representative, a next friend or guardian ad litem may file a
bankruptcy petition for that person. The court must then appoint a guardian ad litem
“or issue any other order needed to protect the interests of the . . . incompetent
debtor.”53
Thus, Rule 1004.1(b)(1) exists precisely for the circumstances of this case. It
authorizes someone like Shaun Itshaik, as next friend, to file a petition for an
incompetent debtor, like Sami Itshaik. And it further provides authority for the relief
granted in this order – appointment of a guardian ad litem once it has been
determined that a debtor is incompetent. Pursuant to that authority, on June 17,
2026, the Court entered an order directing the appointment of a guardian ad litem
for the debtor.54
51 See, e.g., In re Zawisza, 73 B.R. 929, 932-34 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987); In re Myers, 350 B.R. 760, 762
(Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2006); In re Kjellsen, 155 B.R. 1013, 1018 (Bankr. D. S.D. 1993); see generally 11
U.S.C. § 109 (not imposing any competency requirement to be a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code);
see also 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) (excusing a debtor from mandatory pre-filing credit counseling for
incapacity or disability); cf. 11 U.S.C. § 303 (not imposing any competency requirement to be a debtor
in an involuntary bankruptcy case).
52 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1004.1(a).
53 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1004.1(b)(2).
54 Dkt. No. 141.
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 11 of 17

12
In that order, the Court directed the trustee and Valley National Bank (the
only creditor that has regularly appeared at hearings and actively participated in this
case) to – after consulting with the office of the United States trustee – jointly propose
three individual candidates for the Court to consider appointing as guardian ad
litem.55 The Court suggested that the candidates be attorneys, to avoid the practical
complication of a non-attorney guardian ad litem being required to retain separate
counsel to appear in court on the debtor’s behalf, which would add another layer of
expense. To that end, the Court also directed the parties to discuss and address how
the guardian ad litem’s compensation would be funded.56
The United States trustee elected not to participate in the process.57 And,
despite 	the 	Court’s 	request 	for 	three 	candidates, 	after 	reaching 	out 	to 	eight
individuals, the trustee and Valley National Bank were only able to find two
candidates willing to serve: Tarek K. Kiem, Esq., of Kiem Law, PLLC, and John K.
Olson, Esq., of Venable LLP.58 Each candidate submitted a declaration addressing
his qualifications. In addition, although not required by Rule 1004.1, both candidates
also made disclosures as to their disinterestedness – similar to disclosures ordinarily
required for estate professionals under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2014.
Both candidates’ declarations further stated that their willingness to serve was based
on Valley National Bank’s representation that it will pay all reasonable fees and costs
incurred by the individual serving as guardian ad litem in the course of that
55 Id.
56 Id.
57 Dkt. No. 154, at fn. 1.
58 Id. at 1.
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 12 of 17

13
individual’s service, subject to the application and notice requirements of 11 U.S.C.
§§ 327, 330, and 331, and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 2014 and 2016.
Finally, Mr. Kiem’s declaration states that his current hourly rate is $450.00 per
hour, and Mr. Olson’s declaration states that his current hourly rate is $900.00 per
hour.
III. 	Shaun Itshaik’s Objections.
Shaun Itshaik – once again purporting to act as next friend for debtor Sami
Itshaik – objected to both candidates.59 He argues that neither Mr. Kiem nor
Mr. Olson should be appointed based on certain past professional relationships
disclosed in their respective declarations. Instead, Shaun Itshaik requests that he be
appointed guardian ad litem, but that Valley National Bank be required to fund the
legal fees for any attorney he hires. His objection will be overruled.
The Court will first address why Shaun Itshaik will not be appointed as
guardian ad litem. The Court has already held, in denying his motion to remove the
chapter 7 trustee,60 that a next friend who is not himself an attorney may not appear
pro se to prosecute relief on behalf of another; he must be represented by counsel.61
Nothing in the objection reflects that Shaun Itshaik is appearing through counsel.
59 Dkt. No. 160.
60 Dkt. No. 140.
61 At the hearing on Shaun Itshaik’s motion to remove the chapter 7 trustee, the Court delivered an
oral ruling explaining that next-friend status functions solely as a procedural mechanism to access the
Court on behalf of an incompetent person and does not confer authority to independently litigate or
act as legal counsel on behalf of an incompetent person. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Miranda on behalf of
Fiandor–Fuentes v. Warden, Florida Soft Side S., 2026 WL 319076, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2026);
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 873 (11th Cir. 2008); Guajardo v. Luna, 432 F.2d 1324, 1324 (5th
Cir. 1970); Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir. 1998).
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 13 of 17

14
Moreover, while nothing in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1004.1
requires that a guardian ad litem be a “disinterested person” (as is required for a
trustee’s professionals under 11 U.S.C. § 327(a)), Shaun Itshaik argues that the
proposed candidates are not disinterested persons and therefore should not be
appointed. Shaun Itshaik, however, is clearly not a disinterested person. Bankruptcy
Code section 101(14) defines a “disinterested person” as someone who is not a
creditor, equity holder, insider, or recent director, officer, or employee of the debtor,
and who has no interest materially adverse to the bankruptcy estate or its creditors
or equity security holders because of any relationship or connection with the debtor.62
Shaun Itshaik is the debtor’s son, which under the Bankruptcy Code makes him an
insider63 and therefore per se not disinterested. In addition, Shaun Itshaik purports
to be the successor trustee and beneficiary64 of the 1052 East 57 th Street Trust and
the 1138 East 57 th Street Trust – the trusts as to which Valley National Bank holds
a state court judgment avoiding the debtor’s transfers of the Brooklyn properties.65
Thus, Shaun Itshaik holds an interest materially adverse to the bankruptcy estate
and its creditors – he contends that the properties belong to the trusts and not to the
bankruptcy 	estate. 	So, 	although 	disinterestedness 	is 	not 	a 	requirement 	for
appointment as a guardian ad litem, to the extent Shaun Itshaik’s objection to the
two candidates proposed is that they are not disinterested, Shaun Itshaik’s clear lack
62 11 U.S.C. § 101(14).
63 See 11 U.S.C. § 101(31).
64 See Dkt. No. 92.
65 See Claim No. 4-1, at 22-25.
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 14 of 17

15
of disinterestedness in his own right further demonstrates the lack of merit to his
objection.
Turning now to the disclosures made by the candidates – which again, are not
required under Rule 1004.1, but which the Court finds helpful in assessing each
candidate. These disclosures show that both candidates are in fact disinterested.
Mr. Kiem discloses that (a) Marc P. Barmat (the chapter 7 trustee in this case) and
Furr and Cohen, P.A. (counsel for the chapter 7 trustee in this case) represented
Mr. Kiem in his separate capacity as subchapter V trustee in In re Micron Devices,
LLC, a concluded matter unrelated to the debtor or this case; (b) Mr. Kiem serves, in
the ordinary course of his separate law practice, as subchapter V trustee in several
unrelated cases in which Furr and Cohen, P.A. or Shraiberg Page, LLP represents
the debtor in those other cases; and (c) Kiem Law represented Furr and Cohen, P.A.
from 2019 through 2022 in matters concerning collection of Furr and Cohen’s own
accounts receivable – a concluded, unrelated engagement.
None 	of 	the 	disclosed connections 	disqualify 	Mr. 	Kiem 	from 	serving 	as
guardian ad litem. That a proposed guardian ad litem was once a client of the
individual serving as chapter 7 trustee in this case in a concluded matter having
nothing to do with the debtor here, creates no interest adverse to the debtor.
Disinterestedness under section 101(14) is measured by the candidate’s relationship
to the debtor and the estate, not by whether the candidate’s law firm has ever had
any professional dealing with the individual serving as trustee in this case in
unrelated matters. Likewise, Mr. Kiem’s involvement as a professional in other cases
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 15 of 17

16
involving the trustee and his professionals has nothing to do with Sami Itshaik,
Valley National Bank, or this estate. And finally, Mr. Kiem’s past attorney-client
relationship– that ended years before this case – with the law firm serving as counsel
to the trustee does not disqualify him in any way from serving here. The Court
concludes that none of these disclosed connections disqualify Mr. Kiem from serving
as guardian ad litem here.
As for Mr. Olson, he discloses that (a) he previously served a 14-year term as
a United States Bankruptcy Judge and that the trustee, his counsel, and counsel for
Valley National Bank appeared before him on matters unrelated to this case; (b) he
served as a mediator in two separate cases in which the trustee or his counsel
represented a party to the mediation; and (c) his firm represents Mr. Barmat in his
capacity as chapter 7 trustee in the case of In re Jennifer Bradley Corporation, Case
No. 23-11971-SMG.66
While none of Mr. Olson’s disclosed connections disqualify him either, the fact
that his firm is still representing Mr. Barmat in another open (yet completely
unrelated) matter, and the fact that his hourly rate is twice that of Mr. Kiem’s, leads
the 	Court 	to 	conclude 	– 	after 	carefully 	considering 	the 	qualifications 	of 	both
candidates – that Mr. Kiem is the better choice for guardian ad litem in this case.
Accordingly, it is
66 This case is still open.
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 16 of 17

17
ORDERED that:
1. 	Shaun Itshaik’s objection to the appointment of either guardian ad litem
candidate is OVERRULED, and his cross-motion to have himself appointed as
guardian ad litem is DENIED.
2. 	Tarek K. Kiem, Esq. is APPOINTED as guardian ad litem for debtor
Sami Itshaik, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1004.1(b)(2), to
protect the interests of the debtor in this case.
3. 	Mr. Kiem must keep contemporaneous time records of his fees and
expenses, payment of which will be borne by Valley National Bank, after application
and notice under 11 U.S.C. §§ 330 and 331, and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
Procedure 2016.
# # #
Copies furnished to all parties of interest by Clerk of Court.
Case 25-24251-SMG Doc 165 Filed 07/15/26 Page 17 of 17