Anda di halaman 1dari 41

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


Case No. 09-39032(SLM)

IN RE:

Newark, New Jersey


May 24, 2016
11:18 A.M.

GIUSSEPE AND TERESA


GIUDICE,
Debtors

TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING (DRAFT)


BEFORE THE HONORABLE STACEY L. MEISEL
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

',

A P P E A R A N C E S
For the Debtor:
Teresa Giudice

Brach Eisler, L.L.C.


BY: ANTHONY M. RAINONE, ESQ.
101 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, New Jersey 07068

All About The Tea


Carlos J. Cuevas, Esq.
BY: CARLOS J. CUEVAS, ESQ.
1250 Central Park Avenue
Yonkers, New York 10704

For the Trustee:


John Sywilok

(Audio Operator:
Transcriber:

Kopelman & Kopelman


BY: MICHAEL S. KOPELMAN, ESQ.
55 Main Street
Hackensack, New Jersey 07601

Alyson Guida
Isabel ~. Cole
COLE TRANSCRIPTION, L.L.C.
Certified Court Transcribers
P.O. BOX 1216
OCEAN GATE, NEW JERSEY 08740-1216
1-732-237-3200

Proceedings were digitally recorded, transcript produced


by transcription.

THE COURT:

1
2

I'll take appearances.

This is number 1

on the calendar.
Good morning, Your Honor

MR. KOPELMAN:

Michael

Kopelman appearing for the Chapter 7 Trustee, John Sywilok, and

do want to apologize for being late this morning.


Thank you.

THE COURT:

MR. SYWILOK:

John Sywilok, the Chapter 7 Trustee.

MR. RAINONE:

Good morning, Your Honor.

9
10
11

Anthony

Rainone from Brach Eichler, co-counsel for Debtor, Teresa


Giudice.
MR. CUEVAS:

Good morning, Your Honor.

Carlos Cuevas

All About The Tea


12

co-counsel for Teresa Giudice.

13

And belated congratulations upon your appointment.

14

THE COURT:

15

So this is the Trustee's motion to reopen.

Thank you.

I'll hear

16 'I~ from the Trustee.


Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

17 I,

MR. KOPELMAN:

18

We are submitted a responding certification to the

19

certification that indicates that the negligence case against

20

Mr. Kridel is not property of the estate.

21

disagree with that statement.

22

relationship of the parties, clearly began pre-petition and

23

there was a $2500 retainer that Mr. Kridel received from the

24

Debtor, and that's specifically referenced as an element of the

25

cause of action.

We vehemently

All of the -- there's a

D R A F T

3
1

There are some 133 paragraphs of the complaint that


We think it's very

talk about events that were pre-petition.

artificial to divide the claim between pre-petition and post

petition events.

against Mr. Kridel.

It's all one lawsuit.

It's all one claim

Let me ask yo a quick question though.

THE COURT:

So we are here on a motion t reopen so let's start with that

because I did notice on both sides that the parties addressed

really what was the underlying merits of the position that if

10

the case is reopened perhaps you would be arguing; but, let's

11

deal with the standard for reopening.

All About The Tea


12

MR. KOPELMAN:

13

THE COURT:

14

15

Okay.

So 350 of the bankruptcy code allows the

Court to reopen for cause.


MR. KOPELMAN:

16

unadministered asset.

17

the creditor body.

Yes, and there's obviously here an

This may be an asset that will benefit

~nTe filed the bankruptcy petition.

There

18 I was over $8 million in claims listed on that bankruptcy


19 (petition, and the Trustee is certainly interested in this
20 'lawsuit to the extent it has merit and would result in a
21 'recovery for the creditors wants to receive that money.
22
23

THE COURT:

And when did the Trustee find out about

the lawsuit?

24

MR. SYWILOK:

25

THE COURT:

Approximately a month ago.

And how did that occur?

D R A F T

I'm suspecting

4
1

that Mr. Kridel reached out but -That's correct.

MR. SYWILOK:

THE COURT:

Was there a distribution made to creditors?

All right.
I

thought I saw conflicting information on that?


No, Your Honor.

MR. SYWILOK:

6
7

distribution to unsecured creditors.

to pay the administrative costs.


THE COURT:

There was just some money

Mr. Kopelman, I interrupted.

MR. KOPELMAN:

10

There was no

Go ahead.

Well, I think there's cause to reopen.

11

I mean this is a case, we have vigorous counsel prosecuting the

12

case.

13

it should not go strictly to the Debtor.

All About The Tea


14

To the extent that it has merit and produces a recovery

THE COURT:

So the Debtor's counsel cites to

15

authority out of the Eleventh Circuit that indicates that if it

16

is to the benefit of the Debtor and it is an individual harm to

17

the Debtor that it belongs to the Debtor.

18

MR. KOPELMAN:

19

THE COURT:

20

MR. KOPELMAN:

21

THE COURT:

22

MR. KOPELMAN:

23

THE COURT:

Yes.

So I am really going to whether -Yes but that --

Excuse me.

Hold on.

I'm sorry.

I'm going to one of the elements of

24

reopening that I would be looking at as to whether it would be

25

futile to reopen or it makes sense to reopen.

D R A F T

5
MR. KOPELMAN:

I think it makes sense because this is

not when after the bankruptcy was closed there was an

automobile accident, for example, a tort that was very specific

to the Debtor.

This all relates back to the administration of

5 ', the bankruptcy case and the relationship between the Debtor and
6

'

Mr. Kridel.

That's what she's alleging.

It's central, it's

It's not some event that happened

core to the bankruptcy case.

that has nothing whatsoever to do with the bankruptcy filing

such as an automobile accident.


THE COURT:

10

Vdhat about the argument that she went to

11

jail, she lost her discharge so she has suffered in her

12

individual capacity; does that make a difference?

All About The Tea


MR. KOPELMAN:

13

I don't think so because that's the,

14

that's how she's suing for damages, but the creditors have

15

suffered, too.

16

itself.

17

position to stand on the side and say, "This wasn't property of

18

the estate and if I win I'm going to keep all the money to the

19

exclusion of the creditors."

20

They didn't get paid anything in the bankruptcy

I don't think that she should be in a preferred

THE COURT:

In your review of the issue as to whether

21

a cause of action that may have some pre-petition element and

22

post petition element as to whether it would be considered

23

property of the estate, do you know if the Third Circuit has

24

spoken on it?

25

MR. KOPELMAN:

I have cited the O'Dowd case, which is

D R A F T

a Third Circuit opinion in 2000 for the proposition that the

causes of action are traceable directly to the relationship

between the Debtor and Kridel.

They're all about the bankruptcy and the conduct of what

happened in the bankruptcy.


THE COURT:

6
7

I think they are traceable.

Well, I know you cited to the O'Dowd case

but --

MR. KOPELMAN:

THE COURT:

Right.

-- was that a case where all of the

10 lactivity took place pre-petition?


MR. KOPELMAN:

11

I don't recall, but my point and why I

All About The Tea


12

cited it is that it's traceable to pre-petition events.

13

artificial.

THE COURT:

14

It's

But what I am at, my question was is

15

there a Third Circuit case that is on point that deals with

16

both pre-petition and post petition activity as to whether it

17

is property of the estate or not property of the estate?

18

MR. KOPELMAN:

19

THE COURT:

20

MR. KOPELMAN:

21

THE COURT:

22

MR. KOPELMAN:

23

I'm aware of O'Dowd.

24

and --

25

THE COURT:

Well, there was Judge Lyons' case.

Third Circuit.

Third Circuit.

Oh, Third Circuit.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals.


No, I'm aware of Judge Lyons' case.

I'm not -- perhaps you have the case

I don't.

D R A F T

It wasn't a trick question.

was looking to find out whether there was authority directly on

point.

I didn't see any.


No, if I would have had that case I

MR. KOPELMAN:

3
4

would have cited it.

THE COURT:

The parties didn't cite to anything but I

want to be clear as we proceed as to whether anyone has since

discovered or is arguing that there is a case directly on

point.
MR. CUEVAS:

THE COURT:

10

We will, Your Honor.


You will.

What case is that?

There is a Third Circuit case decided

11

MR. CUEVAS:

12

subsequent to O'Dowd.

13

It's a 2002 case and the panel was Judge Pogue of the

14

International Board of Trade, Chief Judge McKee and Circuit

15

Judge Fuentes, who also wrote O'Dowd.

16

296 F.3d 164, 170 (Footnote 5)

17

edition is at the second to last page of the opinion, Your

18

Honor.

19

right now.

All About The Tea


It is Board of Trustees v Foodtown.

The cite, Your Honor, is

Footnote 5 in the West Law

If Your Honor wants the language I can read it to you

20

THE COURT:

21

MR. CUEVAS:

Sure.
"A cause of action is consider property

22

of the estate if the claim existed at the commencement of the

23

filing and the Debtor could have asserted the claim on his own

24

behalf under state law."

25

Circuit cited Butner.

For that proposition the Third

D R A F T

8
THE COURT:

So then I am aware of that case.

That is

not directly on point to the question that I asked which was

the breakdown of a cause of action that both arose, because I

agree and everybody agrees, I do not think you will get any

argument that the Butner case by the Supreme Court says that

state law determines your interest in property.

no argument that pre-petition claims is property of the estate,

right?
MR. CUEVAS:

But there is

That is correct, but Your Honor, I think

10 'what's important here in that sentence is the issue of accrual


If

11

because accrual is the maturation of the property right.

12

the estate could not have asserted a claim prior to the

13

commencement of the case then it's not a pre-petition claim

14

under the case that I've just cited.

All About The Tea


THE COURT:

15 ~,
16

I looked at that, and I am just looking

to see where it is on my desk.

I'll come back to it.

17

Go ahead and continue, Mr. Kopelman.

18

MR. CUEVAS:

19
20
21

Your Honor, I do have a copy of the

opinion.
THE COURT:

I will take it.

of paperwork.
May I approach?

22

MR. CUEVAS:

23

THE COURT:

24

MR. KOPELMAN:

25

You guys gave me a lot

Yes.

Thank you.

I believe that for purposes of

interpreting the bankruptcy code provision or property of the

D R A F T

7
1

estate if the events are traceable to pre-petition events it is

property of the estate.

we've cited the O'Dowd case for that proposition.

her hiring Mr. Kridel, paying him a $2500 retainer and then

filing basically a false petition in many regards which then

set into motion a train of events post petition are all

traceable to the pre-petition conduct of Kridel and the wrong

that the Debtor supposedly suffered.

property of the estate.


THE COURT:

10

That's what we've argued.

That's what
Certainly,

So we think it is

So let me ask this:

I believe based on

11

the timing that was laid out then the Trustee was not aware of

12

the pending motion in the state court?

All About The Tea


MR. KOPELMAN:

13

You mean the pending motion that

apparently --

14

I am sorry.

15

THE COURT:

16

MR. KOPELMAN:

The motion --

-- was referred to in the papers where

Is

17 l a state court judge said that most of these events were post
18

petition, no, the Trustee was not aware of that -That was the motion to dismiss.

19

THE COURT:

20

MR. KOPELMAN:

-- motion and did not participate in


I don't certainly think in no

21

it and was not a party to it.

22

way is it binding on this Court in making a decision as to

23

whether the property at issue in this case is property of the

24

estate or not.

25

THE COURT:

But you would agree that to the extent

D R A F T

F~
1

other than the Court's jurisdiction over what is property of

the estate, to the extent that there is a state court order

that the Court is bound by any state court that has been

issued?
No, I wouldn't because the Trustee was

MR. KOPELMAN:

5
6

not a party to those proceedings and I don't think that this

Court is bound by and it -THE COURT:

Well, the order that was entered was an

order that dismissed certain causes of action and allowed

certain causes of action to go forward.

10

Are you telling me

All About The Tea


that I am not bound by that order?

11
12

13

'

MR. KOPELMAN:

THE COURT:

Yes.

Oh.

You are telling me I am not bound by

14 Ithe order?

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

I don't think it's -- I'm not phrasing

MR. KOPELMAN:

it right judging from your expression.


The ultimate issue before this Court is is it
property of the estate or not, and I don't think -THE COURT:

That is not my question to you.

to listen to my question.
My question is simply you would not disagree that I
I did not talk about the

22

was bound by the state court's order.

23

underlying merits of the case.

24

that issued out of the motion to dismiss.

25

You need

MR. KOPELMAN:

Right.

D R A F T

I am talking about the order

I think that you're not bound

11
1

by it in the same way that the Trustee is not bound by it

because he wasn't a party to it.


THE COURT:

I did not expect to go that route but

then how does this Rooker-Feldman doctrine not apply to an

order issued by the state court?


MR. KOPELMAN:

Well, this is an order issued by the

state court with parties, with a malpractice carrier involved

and not the Trustee involved.


THE COURT:

Mr. Kopelman, there was nothing on the


Let me know if I am mistaken because I

10

merits in that order.

11

think you are going down a path --

All About The Tea


MR. KOPELMAN:

12

I thought that they said that -- well,

13 ~ okay.

Did you read the exhibits?

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. KOPELMAN:

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. KOPELMAN:

18

THE COURT:

19

All right.

So let's take a look at the

is?
MR. CUEVAS:

23

THE COURT:

25

Yes.

Can someone just direct me back to what exhibit that

22

24

Did you read the order?

order.

20
21

Yes.

Your Honor, the transcript is at L.


The L, but there was actually an order

that was issued.


MR. CUEVAS:

Yes, the order would be right before L.

D R A F T

12
1

THE COURT:

MR. CUEVAS:

THE COURT:

All right.

So --

K.
Thank you.

So what part of this order do

you not agree with or would you argue that I am not bound by,

Mr. Kopelman?

MR. KOPELMAN:

THE COURT:

FEMALE VOICE:

THE COURT:

10

That's Exhibit L?

Yes.

K, Your Honor.

Oh, I am sorry.

MR. KOPELMAN:

K.

L is the transcript.

Well, I don't think there's enough in

11

front of me just by this order to say that you're bound or not

12

bound by it.

13

dismiss is granted as to breach of contract.

14

that there's enough in this motion, and I certainly don't

All About The Tea


The breach of contract claim, the motion to

I don't think

15 ',comprehend all of the ramifications of this motion when the


16 'Trustee was not a party.
17

THE COURT:

But Mr. Kopelman, I am supposing you


I do not see

18

might be reading more into the order than I am.

19

any findings other than a dismissal of a cause of action and

20

permission for certain causes of action to proceed.

21

no order paragraph in regards to the Trustee's position or to

22

the merits of this suit.

23

have issues.

24

not bound by what the state court did in relation to the

25

complaint?

There is

Even if there were we would still

I am just trying to figure out how is this Court

D R A F T

13
1

MR. KOPELMAN:

THE COURT:

Not what you think.

Tell me some

authority.
MR. KOPELMAN:

4
5

I think it's not --

Well, your question has caught me by

surprise.
THE COURT:

But it was briefed in some ways, not

exactly as far as the order is concerned, but your adversaries

did raise the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in relation to other

points of their argument, but I would suppose that you would

10

have examined it since it was raised in your adversaries'

11

papers.

All About The Tea


12

MR. KOPELMAN:

Again, I can only say because the

13

Trustee was not a party I do not think it's binding on this

14

Court as to what is or is not property of the estate.

15
16

THE COURT:

That's not my question.

The order

doesn't find what is property of the estate nor is there any

17 '~, decision insofar as the underlying merits of the suit.


18 'I~

MR. KOPELMAN:

Well, as to the suit, it's saying that

19

the breach of fiduciary duty and the negligence may proceed.

20

That's what I'm reading right now.


Right.

21

THE COURT:

22

MR. KOPELMAN:

"Order that the Defendant's -- which


You know, I

23

is Kridel -- motion to dismiss is hereby granted."

24

must say I'm just not familiar enough with this order to

25

comment on what it says or what it doesn't say or what it means

D R A F T

14
I just don't think it's binding insofar as

or doesn't mean.

your determination is concerned.


THE COURT:

Well, I think it sounds like we are


I wanted to know if you had any

mixing apples and oranges.

issues with the order and certainly Rooker-Feldman says that a

bankruptcy judge is bound by certain decisions that come out.

I don't see anything regarding assets or property of the estate

here, but I will leave that.

perhaps regarding the order.


MR. KOPELMAN:

10

THE COURT:

we can come back on another date

Well, thanks.

So your position is really, "I'm not

All About The Tea


11
12

prepared to answer that question."


MR. KOPELMAN:

13 !I,
14

Not in total, not totally, I'm not.

think that this, it may have some relevance if this case is

15 !I reopened and there's some recovery to this estate.


16

I see some

causes of action were permitted to proceed and others not.


So my question --

17 I'~

THE COURT:

18

MR. KOPELMAN:

The Trustee doesn't intend to try this


If the case is to proceed it

19

case in the bankruptcy court.

20

will proceed in the state court.


THE COURT:

21

All right.

You can go ahead with your

22 ' argument.
23

MR. KOPELMAN:

Unless you have any more questions I

24

don't have any more arguments.

25

THE COURT:

Let me hear from your adversaries.

D R A F T

15
1

MR. CUEVAS:

Your Honor, may it please the Court,

here, we're not only talking about legal malpractice but also

the issue of the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.

Under the O'Dowd case, Your Honor, we respectfully represent

that the Kridel lawsuit is property of Ms. Giudice.

a specific exception, and that is if the harm of occurred

directly to the debtor, and here could not be a more striking

case of harm being visited to a debtor.

9
10

THE COURT:

O'Dowd has

Let me ask you a question about that.

Is

that harm or could that be looked at as damages that occur from


Is it not just a calculation

11

the actual potential malpractice?

12

of damages, what were the damages from the activity?

All About The Tea


13

MR. CUEVAS:

Well, Your Honor, I think you have to

14

look at the concealment issue of the target letter because here

15

we're not talking about a garden mill variety of legal

16

malpractice.

17

lawsuit now is that Mr. Kridel intentionally withheld

18

information regarding the target letter from Mr. Giudice.

19 '~,

The assertion, the central assertion of this

THE COURT:

But that is just one part of the lawsuit.

20

There were several parts to the lawsuit that stemmed from the

21

preparation and meetings that took place leading up to the

22

filing of the petition, then the acts that occurred after the

23

filing of the petition related to the 341 meeting, the 2004

24

examination, and the amendment to the schedules.

25

MR. CUEVAS:

Your Honor, if you look at Exhibit F,

D R A F T

16
1

that's Mr. Pearlson's affidavit of merit, Mr. Pearlson analyzes

the events and incidents that could be construed as legal

malpractice from a criminal law perspective, Your Honor, and I

think that's what differentiates this case from other types of

bankruptcy malpractice cases in that the case evolves, Your

Honor, from simple bankruptcy malpractice to criminal law

malpractice.
THE COURT.

8
9

'Ii

But did we have simple bankruptcy law

malpractice in the first instance?


MR. CUEVAS:

10 ',

Your Honor, there was bankruptcy

11

malpractice that occurred and most of that occurred post

12

petition.

All About The Tea


13

THE COURT:

14

MR. CUEVAS:

15 '

THE COURT:

But not all?


No.

So there was some pre-petition admittedly

16

and the arguments can go on about the post petition, but

17

admittedly --

18

MR. CUEVAS:

19 '

THE COURT:

20
21

There was some pre-petition malpractice.


And we will call it alleged malpractice

because there is no finding of malpractice right now.


MR. CUEVAS:

There were alleged incidents of


It is our

22

malpractice that occurred prior to the filing.

23

contention that the vast bulk and the finding-of-fact, and

24

that's buttressed by Judge Brennan's finding-of-fact on Page 18

25 ' of the state court decision which is Exhibit L, that virtually

D R A F T

17
1

all of the incidents of malpractice that are alleged to have

occurred occurred post petition, Your Honor.


THE COURT:

Well, we will come back to that but let's


So I read his transcript

talk about Judge Brennan's decision.

and I think what he says is, "In the most liberal light based

on the fact that this is a motion to dismiss, then, for

purposes of this motion I will view the allegations as being

true."

Then he goes on to say, "Virtually all."


Yes.

MR. CUEVAS:

9
10

THE COURT:

11

MR. CUEVAS:

But virtually all does not equal all.


No, and Your Honor, in this context it

All About The Tea


12

does not have to equal all.


THE COURT:

13

I just want to work on that little bit of


Why

14

portion that you are willing to admit was pre-petition.

15

does the Trustee not -- just that portion, we will get to the

16

stuff that happened post petition -- why is that part not

17

property of the estate that should be administered by the

18

trustee?

19 '

Because, Your Honor, the issue of

MR. CUEVAS:

20

accrual and especially, Your Honor, that portion of the claim

21

for breach of fiduciary duty.

22

claim is all post petition, Your Honor.

23
24
25

The breach of fiduciary duty

We have two causes of action that were

THE COURT:
left in the complaint.
MR. CUEVAS:

Yes.

D R A F T

18
1

THE COURT:

MR. CUEVAS:

And so -So I will work my way back, Your Honor.

The breach of fiduciary duty claim focuses on the target letter

and the target letter was issued on or about March 24, 2011,

which is all post petition, Your Honor.


THE COURT:

As a result of Ms. Giudice's activities

from the filing of the petition and what happened through the

case.
Well, let's take it from this.

9
10

When I looked at the

indictment, the indictment included pre-petition activities and


included the fraudulent schedules that were filed.

All About The Tea


11

MR. CUEVAS:

12

13

Yes, but 16 out of the 19 counts for

bankruptcy fraud all concern post petition events, Your Honor.


THE COURT:

14

But if 19 out of the 19 did not relate to

15 'something that would be considered post petition, arising post


16 'petition, why would I not reopen?
MR. CUEVAS:

17
18 ( Honor.

Under O'Dowd for two reasons, Your

One, the cause of action did not accrue until (1) she

19

lost her discharge; (2) she was indicted; and, (3) she was

20

actually sentenced.
So you do not have a cause of action

21

THE COURT:

22

unless you have the damages --

23

MR. CUEVAS:

24

THE COURT:

25

MR. CUEVAS:

Yes.
-- until the damages occur -That's correct, Your Honor.

D R A F T

19
-- which is what the cases say?

THE COURT:

So in the filing of a petition that was fraudulent,

although filed under penalty of perjury, there are no damages

at that moment?

MR. CUEVAS:

THE COURT:

No.
So then no pre-petition case could live

unless it was an accident that happened and occurred and

everything was over at the time of filing?


MR. CUEVAS:

No, Your Honor, because there is a line

10

of cases that says if you misfiled under the wrong chapter that

11

automatically, once the petition is filed the cause of action

12

has accrued.

13

Your Honor.

All About The Tea


THE COURT:

14

15

That is more of the second case that they cited,

Did she not plead that as well that she

was not given any notice of the, I think the complaint lists

16 'out that she was not advised that she could file anything other
17 '~ than a 7.
18

MR. CUEVAS:

That is correct, but that itself, Your

19

Honor, is not the basis for the malpractice action, Your Honor.

20

Here, Your Honor, you have three major incidents that


She waived her discharge; she was

21

occur post petition.

22

indicted; and, she pled guilty.

23
24
25

Your Honor, if I may, I'd like to change the


discussion to another O'Dowd point, if it pleases the Court?
THE COURT:

Sure.

D R A F T

20
MR. CUEVAS:

1
2 (bench?

Your Honor, may I please approach the

I just have a little chart for the Court.

THE COURT:

MR. CUEVAS:

All right.
Your Honor, one of the things that we
This case

question here is whether there is an estate left.

was filed on October 29, 2009.

for the entire case approximately December 15, 2011.

the period that this case was active there was significant lift

stay activity.

The automatic stay was lifted


During

What's interesting about the claims register,

10

Your Honor, is that there are approximately $11 million in

11

secured debt.

12

essentially all of the Giudice's real estate holdings have been

13

liquidated such that the only piece of property that they own

Since the case was filed, Your Honor,

All About The Tea


14 lnow is the marital residence.

So the claims of the secured

15 ~~~creditors, Your Honor, have been liquidated.


16

In terms of priority debt, Your Honor, Ms. Giudice

17 'has reached agreements with the IRS, the Treasury Department.


18 'So those are the major creditors in terms of priority debt.
19 'In terms of the post stay litigation, there is a settlement
20

with Alliance Laundry, which my client has entered into.

21

and what we've done with the (11:48:25), Your Honor, is gone

22

through the different claims.

23

So,

At this juncture, Your Honor, there are two claims


One is (11:48:42), which Ms. Giudice contests

24

that are unpaid.

25

because she even thinks that she has a claim arising against

D R A F T

21
The

them and that claim is probably property of the estate.

other is for medical services which she disputes the quality of

the service.
THE COURT:

4
5

There

is Home Depot.
MR. CUEVAS:

6
7

Actually, there are a couple more.

Home Depot, Your Honor, yesterday my

client contacted (11:49:20) and took care of Home Depot.

8 '

THE COURT:

MR. CUEVAS:
THE COURT:

10
11

MR. CUEVAS:

12

THE COURT:

So that bill was paid?


Yes, with all the credit cards.
All the credit card bills have been paid?
Yes.

All About The Tea


13

So the list that I am looking at is not

accurate now because I think that there are -MR. CUEVAS:

14

Well, that was May 19th.

As of May

15 123rd, Your Honor, the only two claims, Your Honor, are
16

(11:49:48) and North Hudson.

17

So in terms of the second, we have --

18

THE COURT:

19
20
21

paid.

They simply have been settled with payment plans.


MR. CUEVAS:

No, they have been settled, Your Honor,

and they're satisfied and I have copies of those agreements.

22

THE COURT:

23

MR. CUEVAS:

24

THE COURT:

25

Well, the priority claims have not been

With payment plans.


Yes.
So they are not paid.

payment plan.

D R A F T

They are on a

22

but they're established.


THE COURT:

3
4

At this point, there's no litigation.

But if they thought they could get paid

tomorrow would -I can't speak for them, but they are

MR. CUEVAS:

5
6

They're on a payment plan, Your Honor,

MR. CUEVAS:

satisfied, Your Honor.


THE COURT:

Well, they are not satisfied.

What you

8 ~I ,can say is that there is a payment plan to pay them that has
9 'been agreed to.
MR. CUEVAS:

10

There is a payment plan in place.

11

Your Honor, remember, Ms. Giudice was incarcerated

12

for a year and before that she was embroiled in her criminal

13

court litigation, but Ms. Giudice has acted responsibly.

14

terms of putting a petition that looked fine in October of 2009

15

and saying there was $8 million of debt and that's why this

16

case needs to be reopened, Your Honor, I think that's totally

17

inaccurate.

18

tell you what claims he intends to satisfy and what claims are

19

owed him.

All About The Tea


20

So in

In fact, the Trustee could not stand up today and

THE COURT:

Well, that is because he has not been

21

working on the case because the case was closed and he does not

22

have the authority to stand up and tell me that he has examined

23

the claims at this point.

24
25

MR. CUEVAS:

But Your Honor, in terms of satisfying

O'Dowd, that's his burden of proof.

D R A F T

23
1

THE COURT:

The burden of proof is to show that there

is, he would have to show that there could potentially be

prejudice, and since at the point that the case closed there

were creditors, right?

MR. CUEVAS:

THE COURT:

Yes.
That is what he knows.

What you have

given to me today is new evidence and information that I am

8 'surmising, and I am not arguing on his behalf by any means, but


9 'that he has not had a chance to review because I have not had a
10 ~I '~chance to review it.
11

MR. CUEVAS:

12

THE COURT:

If I may approach the bench again?

All About The Tea


13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

You may.

Am I getting more new

information?

MR. CUEVAS:

Yes.

This is a title report on Ms.

Giudice that shows (11:52:11).


Again, I stress that the stay was lifted in December
of 2011, Your Honor.
Your Honor, we would have addressed the claims issue
but it was only raised in the reply for the first time.
So in terms, Your Honor, of the O'Dowd criteria, we
think that Ms. Giudice satisfies O'Dowd.

22

In addition, Your Honor --

23

THE COURT:

24
25

Let me ask a question.

When did Ms.

Giudice decide that this cause of action existed?


MR. CUEVAS:

When did I first meet with her, Your

D R A F T

24
1 IHonor?
THE COURT:

No, that's not my question.

When did

this, in Ms. Giudice's argument, when did this occur; when did

the alleged malpractice occur?


MR. CUEVAS:

I think, Your Honor, when she was

incarcerated because to her, Your Honor, it was always her

intent to pay her bills.

taken away from her children, incarcerated for a year, had to

give up her career, was labeled a felon, was subjected to

10

The real damage occurred when she was

public ridicule and the emotional strain that it put on her,

All About The Tea


11

Your Honor.

THE COURT:

12

So was this potential asset, or at least

13

what she considered to be her asset disclosed in the criminal

14

proceeding?

15

MR. CUEVAS:

16

THE COURT:

I do not know, Your Honor.


Because I looked at the exhibits that

17

were provided and attached, and when I look at Exhibit I, Page

18

3, under the -- I am sorry, that is not the one.

19

when I look at Page 6 of Exhibit H it requires Ms. Giudice to

20

disclose her assets in a financial disclosure statement, as

21

part of the criminal proceeding.

22

that?

23

MR. CUEVAS:

Hold on.

So was this suit listed in

No, Your Honor, because it's very


Ms. Giudice had

24

interesting that you should raise that.

25

retained Judge Lyons as her bankruptcy counselor to raise these

D R A F T

25
1

issues and Judge Lyons --

THE COURT:

MR. CUEVAS:

THE COURT:

MR. CUEVAS:

Ray Lyons?
Yes.
Mr. Lyons for purposes -- retired judge.
Said basically that it was his opinion

that nothing wrong had happened to her and that's why she

didn't list it as an asset.

8
9
10

THE COURT:

Well, has there been an amendment since

the filing of the underlying complaint once she decided that


she had an asset?
No, because she satisfied her criminal

All About The Tea


11
12
13

14

15

MR. CUEVAS:

restitution, Your Honor.


THE COURT:

So this was only required to the extent

that she had to continue to make criminal restitution?


MR. CUEVAS:

I'm not certain, Your Honor.

16

expert in that area as to what is required.

17

when she --

18

THE COURT:

I'm not an

But in terms of

Well, it also has an interest to be

So my concern is that I have an assertion of

19

discovered.

20

property of the estate from the Trustee and I have Ms. Giudice

21

saying, "It's mine."

22

that the federal government required as part of the plea

23

agreement for her to disclose whatever assets she had at the

24

time or, if she in fact discovered them from that time that

25

they should have been disclosed.

I am looking at a document that requires

D R A F T

So I would like to know

'rte

whether they were disclosed in that proceeding at some point,

even if she did not do it at that moment.


I can discuss this point with her

MR. CUEVAS:

criminal counsel, Your Honor.

4
5

THE COURT:

MR. CUEVAS:

All right.
But in terms, Your Honor, of the

controlling law, I think O'Dowd and the Foodtown decision are

controlling in the Third Circuit.

breach of fiduciary duty claim the allegations, that one of the

10

bases for that claim are post petition, especially the issue of

And if you look at the

what Mr. Kridel did with the content of the target letter, the

All About The Tea


11

12 'alleged concealment of the target letter, and his failure to

13 ',,properly advise Ms. Giudice that she was in jeopardy of being


14 'indicted by a federal grand jury.

16

So does not the O'Dowd decision though

THE COURT:

15
I

saY that when You look at whether it was personal to the debtor

17

that you have to also look at it in relations to the creditors

18

as to whether they will suffer any harm because even if it is

19

personal to the debtor, if there is still going to be harm to

20

the creditors then you do not meet the O'Dowd standard?

21

MR. CUEVAS:

Again, Your Honor, this is a very

22

peculiar case in that the case was originally filed in 2009.

23

V1e are now in 2016.

24

been satisfied.

25

THE COURT:

That bulk of the debt, Your Honor, has

But not all of it.

D R A F T

27
1

MR. CUEVAS:

THE COURT:

MR. CUEVAS:

THE COURT:

The -Satisfied means paid in full in my book.


Yes.
So I am looking at the settlements as

they have been negotiated and they are on a payment plan.

have not been paid.


MR. CUEVAS:

7
8

They

But also, Your Honor, in terms of the

property being liquidated, it's been -THE COURT:

Well, let's go back to O'Dowd.

Am I

10 'right, if there is harm -11

MR. CUEVAS:

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. CUEVAS:

Your Honor, I am going back to O'Dowd.

All About The Tea


All right.

In terms of the creditors being harmed,

14

Your Honor, if Ms. Giudice is permitted to retain this asset

15

the creditors will not be harmed because there already is a

16

payment plan in place for the state and federal taxing

17

authorities.

18

Laundry.

19

of the debt in this case has been liquidated already, Your

20

Honor.

21

There is a payment plan in place for Alliance

There is -- and the assets that secured the vast bulk

THE COURT:

But would you agree that if the

22

bankruptcy estate received a recovery from the malpractice suit

23

that those same creditors that have payment plans could share

24

in the distribution from the bankruptcy estate?

25

MR. CUEVAS:

Well, Your Honor, in theory they could,

D R A F T

28
1

but the fact that they're not here protesting I think speaks

volumes as to what Ms. Giudice has done with the taxing

authorities because they have -THE COURT:

4
5

They are not here to say that the estate

gets part of it or that the case should be reopened.

6 'know that we can read an inference.

I do not

There is a settlement plan

7 ',that she is paying on, but they would get to share in a


8

recovery should -MR. CUEVAS:

9
10

Yes, but Your Honor, it's interesting

that the only person that has contacted the Trustee regarding

11

Ms. Giudice's claim is Mr. Kridel because in essence, Your

12

Honor --

All About The Tea


13

THE COURT:

14

MR. CUEVAS:

He lost.

This is his -- no, but it even gets

This is his third bite at the

15

worse than that, Your Honor.

16

apple.

17

immediately contacted the Trustee and has also made a motion

18

for reconsideration.

19

really isn't about the estate and Ms. Giudice.

20

about Mr. Kridel and Ms. Giudice.

21

Made a motion to dismiss, lost on that.

THE COURT:

So he

In essence, Your Honor, this lawsuit


It's really

Well, that might be, and I cannot really

22 '~, read into his actions, I did notice that, and I assumed that he
23

reached out for Mr. Sywilok because he lost, but still, how the

24 ' estate acts in its own right should it have the right to really
25

does not have anything to do with Mr. Kridel.

D R A F T

Yes, he waited

~~
Once could say

until he lost before he contacted Mr. Sywilok.

perhaps he should have contacted him when the suit was filed,

but he gambled to see if he would win and he did not.

that does not really impact a motion to reopen.


MR. CUEVAS:

5
6

However,

But Your Honor, then let's talk about

the issue of the estate and Ms. Giudice.


If you look at the Foodtown decision, which is

7
8

decided subsequent to O'Dowd, it states very clearly that only

causes of action that exist as of the date of the filing are

10

property of the estate.

That is unequivocal.

Here, Your Honor, under New Jersey state law the

11

All About The Tea


12

causes of action for legal malpractice and for breach of

13

fiduciary duty did not exist as of the date of the filing

14

and --

15
16

THE COURT:

So that is going to the merits of the

argument.

17

MR. CUEVAS:

18

THE COURT:

19

MR. CUEVAS:

No.

May I finish, Your Honor?

You may.
Because it's really compelling that the

20

Trustee is not able to cite one case in which he can state that

21

yes, under New Jersey law these causes of action are property

22

of the estate.

23

THE COURT:

I think he cited to, you distinguished it

24

and I am not sure which of you I agree with, but he cited to

25

the Hussain case under Judge Lyons in supporting his position.

D R A F T

r~
MR. CUEVAS:

1
2

accrual.
THE COURT:

3
4

But that also had activities that began

pre-petition and ended post petition, correct?


MR. CUEVAS:

5
6

But Your Honor, that was not about

No, that was more you filed in the wrong

chapter.
THE COURT:

But you are nitpicking on that to say

that that only, it is okay, I can give you malpractice that

started pre-petition if it is the wrong chapter, under that

10

circumstance we do not have to look at when the activity


occurred.

All About The Tea


11
12
13

14

MR. CUEVAS:

I'm saying under the applicable case law

Your Honor, that's the majority position.


THE COURT:

It is the majority but is it everybody's,

15

and did they say that it only applies in the situation when

16

there is a filing in the wrong chapter, was it that specific?

17

MR. CUEVAS:

That's the way I would read those cases,

18 'Your Honor.
19
20
21
22

THE COURT:

be that specific but I will look at them again.


MR. CUEVAS:

Because, Your Honor, I read Judge

Bernstein's Strada, by Judge Bernstein.

23

THE COURT:

24

MR. CUEVAS:

25

Because I do not know that I read it to

Bernstein's opinion.

Yes, I read it, too.


And that's the way I interpreted Judge
As compared to --

D R A F T

31
1

THE COURT:

MR. CUEVAS:

That was a New York case, right?


Yes, Your Honor.

And he said under New

York law that's when that cause of action accrued, as compared

to Witko and Holstein, and here it's more analogous, this case

is more analogous to Holstein because Holstein involved the

loss of a discharge.

that it wasn't until the discharge was actually denied that the

debtor suffered any damages.

There, the Illinois Bankruptcy Court held

Here, Your Honor, it wasn't until the discharge was

9
10

waived, there was an indictment and then there was the

11

conviction that Ms. Giudice sustained damages and that those

12

claims accrued well after the filing, Your Honor.

13

why I am saying that these cases, especially the cases

14

involving the denial of the discharge, are different and are

15

different than the case law you just filed under the wrong

All About The Tea


So that's

16 ,chapter.
17

THE COURT:

And so is there, just hypothetically

18 ( speaking, could there ever be malpractice then for false


19

petition that was filed in a bankruptcy case if the discharge

20 .had not been revoked?


No, because under New Jersey law, Your

21

MR. CUEVAS:

22

Honor, there had to be damages.

23

revoked but there is an indictment under 18 U.S.C. 151, 152

24

then that would the damage that would occur, but then that

25

cause of action would accrue when the indictment is issued and

D R A F T

So if the discharge is not

32
1

if the person is sentenced.

you have to look at --

3
4
5
6
7

THE COURT:

So that's why under that scenario

So if there is an indictment and the

person is not sentenced?


MR. CUEVAS:

Then you have the damages of the

criminal law fees that the person paid.


THE COURT:

So if you file a false petition and you

simply have to attend a 2004, provide further documents, et

cetera, does that account for malpractice?

10

MR. CUEVAS:

Depends upon how the retainer is

11 ,structured and whether you had to retain new attorneys.

All About The Tea


12

THE COURT:

So if you use the same attorney there is

13 (malpractice or there is not?


14

MR. CUEVAS:

It depends whether if you had the same

15

attorney depending upon how the retainer was structured, Your

16

Honor, the cause of action would accrue when you had to pay

17

more legal fees because those would be your damages under New

18

Jersey law.

19

THE COURT:

So what about the Strada case where it

20

states, it's on Page 236, "Although the accrual date for state

21

law purposes is important it is not always critical in deciding

22

whether a cause of action will be property of the estate.

23

Section 541(a) is not restricted by state law concept such as

24

when a cause of action ripens or a statute of limitations

25

begins to run and property of the estate may include claims

D R A F T

33
1

that were inchoate on the petition date."

MR. CUEVAS:

THE COURT:

Well, Your Honor -And it cites to the Supreme Court case

Segal v Rochelle.
See, I think the Segal case, Your Honor,

THE COURT:

is misleading in this respect.

were from two to three years prior to the filing of the

There, the loss carry-overs

8 ' petition and it was asserted that those loss carry-overs would
9

be used and that's why Justice Harlan, in his opinion, for a

10

unanimous court basically stated it was so deeply rooted and

11

well-known that it should be deemed property of the estate.

All About The Tea


12

Here, Your Honor, no one at this juncture could

13

state, by the way, Ms. Giudice would receive a target letter on

14

such and such a date.

Ms. Giudice would be indicted on such

15 land such a date, okay.


16

So although you have certain events,

Your Honor, that occurred in this case pre-petition, what

17 ',happened subsequent to the filing of this case was much more


18

severe, exacerbated the situation and formed the impetus for

19

the target letter which is the real basis for the breach of

20

fiduciary duty claim because it's, in over 30 years of

21

practice, I've never heard of a situation whereby an attorney

22

that receives a target letter for bankruptcy fraud conceals

23

that letter from his or her client and doesn't tell that

24

client, "By the way, there's a substantial possibility that you

25

will be indicted for bankruptcy fraud."

D R A F T

34
1

THE COURT:

What about going back to the Strada case

that you cited where it says on Page 237, "A cause of action

for legal malpractice based on negligently advising a client to

file a bankruptcy petition accrues at the latest at the time

the petition is filed."

MR. CUEVAS:

I think Strada is distinguishable here,

Your Honor, because in the continuum the poor advice to file

here was one act that was pre-petition but the vast bulk, as

we've outlined in a 54-page complaint, occurred pre-petition,

10

Your Honor, and the most serious acts and the most detrimental

11 ', acts of malpractice occurred post petition.

All About The Tea


12

THE COURT:

So again, and my issue is the complaint

13

has several pages though that refer to things that happened

14

leading up to the bankruptcy case and go into great detail of

15

what was not done for Ms. Giudice prior to the filing of the

16 ',petition, and yes, several activities and several pages more


17

talk about the post petition, but you know, when I read the

18

complaint and the decision it still leads me to the fact that

19

not everything happened post petition.

20

the accrual, but again, using cases that you have cited to as

21

well say accrual may not be so important for 541 purposes.

22

That is what it really comes to is whether reopening this case

23

is futile because it could not possibly be property of the

24

estate or should the case be reopened so that that issue can be

25

determined.

D R A F T

I know you go back to

35
MR. CUEVAS:

Okay.

Your Honor, I did not cite

2 ~Strada.
3

THE COURT:

did not bring it up.


MR. CUEVAS:

No, you cited it as you stood here.

No, because you talked about the pre-

petition situation and I think that's the leading case for the

pre-petition situation, but that's why -THE COURT:

8
9
10

I know you did not cite to it.

actually noted the fact that you did not cite to it because
under Strada you have some issues.

11

MR. CUEVAS:

No, no, but also it is factually

All About The Tea


12 ', distinguishable from this case and that's why we lead with

13

Witko and --

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. CUEVAS:

The Eleventh?
-- Holstein.

And in fact, Your Honor,

16

what's interesting about Strada, if you look at Strada there is

17

also the Alvarez decision that is from the Eleventh Circuit,

18

which is distinguished in Witko.

And Witko basically evolves

19 Ilfrom Alvarez and says you really have to look at when your
20 'claim itself accrued.
THE COURT:

21

So and I will say I appreciate your

22

knowledge of the cases and it is gratifying to discuss them,

23

but the standard for Section 350 is a discretionary standard.

24

It does not ask for a decision on the merits.

25

cause.

It says for

When I listen to the arguments that are put forth it

D R A F T

36
1

really becomes there is a potential here that some part or all

could be an asset of the estate and when I sit here I am not

convinced otherwise.

believe for another day.

my discretion to reopen this case so that we can further

determine wether it is an asset of the estate.

MR. CUEVAS:

I do not know.

It becomes an argument I

So tell me why I should not exercise

Your Honor, the reason why you should

not open this case is, one, this claim is very personal to Ms.

Giudice.

Ms. Giudice went to prison, no one else.

Under the

10

O'Dowd criteria, you will never find a case that fits more

11

within the O'Dowd paradigm.

All About The Tea


THE COURT:

12

But it is missing the second portion of

13

the second standard of the O'Dowd criteria, which is the

14

concomitant injury to the creditors.

15

fine, but when I look at your own chart and when I look at the

16

judgment report there are creditors that exist on this day for

17

Ms. Giudice.

18

paid.

19

I know you say they are

They may have payment plans but they are not

MR. CUEVAS:

Your Honor, that is correct, they are

20

not paid, but there is an alternative device that has been

21

implemented to assure their payment.

22

THE COURT:

Should she continue to pay.

She may not.

23 !You give me the O'Dowd standard and O'Dowd says so long as


There is another case, and I can't

24

creditors are not injured.

25

think of it off the top of my head, which, actually, it was

D R A F T

K~~
1

Judge Lyons' case, Hussain, that cites to O'Dowd to say, "And

here, creditors are being injured."

that they have the opportunity to be paid now perhaps and they

may not be.

MR. CUEVAS:

Okay.

So here, the injury is

And in the Judge Lyons case, the

Debtor represented that he would use the proceeds of the

lawsuit to pay the creditors and, therefore, Judge Lyons ruled

that the Debtor was estopped.

9
10
11

THE COURT:

That was the second portion of his ruling

though.

All About The Tea


MR. CUEVAS:

Yes, but going back to the first portion

12

of the ruling, Your Honor, in terms of the O'Dowd exception,

13

the damage that that debtor claimed was that he had lost all of

14

his property and Judge Lyons said, "That was not a damage

15

specific to you to fall under O'Dowd."

16

THE COURT:

Well, it is not just damage specific to

17

you, you are correct.

18

but, it is damage specific to you and no injury to creditors.

19

MR. CUEVAS:

She went to jail and no one else did;

And Your Honor, given that they came in

20

and asserted there were $8 million worth of claims here, Your

21

Honor, that was in 2009.

22

Your Honor, a list of creditors, a list of claims that have

23

been satisfied and we are candid in saying to you the last bulk

24

that remains out there is her home mortgage and the taxing

25

authorities, Your Honor.

We've come forth and we've put forth,

That's it.

D R A F T

38
1

THE COURT:

I look at the judgment search provided

and note that there are A through F of taxes that are owed as

far as --

4
5

MR. CUEVAS:
Your Honor.

THE COURT:

MR. CUEVAS:

THE COURT:

9
10
11

And those are all within the agreements,

So they are agreements to pay?


Yes.
Right.

I got that part, but they are

still creditors.
MR. CUEVAS:

And Your Honor, in terms of the

agreements, Your Honor, most of it is post petition.

All About The Tea


12

THE COURT:

13

MR. CUEVAS:

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. CUEVAS:

Most of the agreements to pay?


Yes.

All right.

Are not for pre-petition taxes.

They're

16 'for post petition taxes.


17

So in terms of the estate, Your Honor --

18

THE COURT:

The problem is I cannot decide that

I do not know that because I have been handed

19

today, right.

20

information today.

21

body, even if they are owed $5 they are still creditors and

22

they are not paid.

23

no creditors.

24
25

When I look at that there is a creditor

Maybe she will go pay it and then we have

MR. CUEVAS:

So Your Honor, can we hold an

evidentiary hearing on what the harm would be to the estate?

D R A F T

39

Decision
No, we cannot because I do not have to

THE COURT:

I have to find

find that there is actual harm to the estate.

that there is a potential that creditors could be prejudiced.

It is a discretionary decision and there are many factors to

look at; the timing, and there is not that much time that has

past; whether it could be an asset of the estate, and here

there are arguments on both sides as to whether it is indeed an

asset, but admittedly, everybody agrees that there was pre-

petition conduct that led up to it.

10

I see that there are still

creditors.
MR. CUEVAS:

11

But Your Honor, in terms of the O'Dowd

All About The Tea


12

test then, and we didn't have a -THE COURT:

13
14

merits.

The O'Dowd test, we are getting to the

I am not deciding the merits today.

15 ,purposes of reopen.

I am saying for

We may have an evidentiary hearing at some

16 'point if the case is reopened, but the standard is not that I


17 'can decide who wins or loses today.

It is simply whether the

18

case should be reopened to examine these issues that are out

19

there.
I have to tell you, while I think you did a fabulous

20
21

job on briefing and on argument, I am just not convinced that

22

the case should not be reopened to look at these issues

23

further.

24

the case law leaves the door open because while there are

25

leading decisions there are no decisions that are directly on

Judge Brennan's decision left the door open.

D R A F T

I think

40

Decision

Likewise, the financial

point to the situations we have here.

disclosure issue as to whether in fact this was listed as an

asset in the, or disclosed as required under the plea agreement

that I noted from the exhibits, I think that there are a lot of

issues here and, for that reason, I am struggling to say no to

reopen because I am not deciding the case today.

client may prove victorious at another point, but I think we

In fact, your

8 ' need to get to that other point.


So unless the parties have anything further to add, I

9
10

am prepared to rule to reopen the case, For the reasons that I

11

have just stated and I have started to through and line up the

12

facts but I think it is unnecessary to read a full and long

13

decision into the record, but most controlling for me is the

14

fact that we do not have a Third Circuit case directly on

All About The Tea


15 ',point.

There is a split in authority as to how cases and

16

courts in other jurisdictions and this one examine potential

17

pre- and post petition malpractice issues.


While there may have been a satisfaction of a number

18
19

of the creditors that are out there and potential payment

20

plans, the fact remains that creditors still exist for this

21

Debtor.

22

to be examined further.

23

So the potential of a recovery is something that needs

I am going to order the case be reopened and a


I am also going to ask that the

24

Trustee appointed to the case.

25

parties, in order to resolve this issue sooner than later, I

D R A F T

',

41

Decision
1

would suggest I should say, that the parties bring that issue

to a head because I think there is no sense in the bankruptcy

continuing without finding out who, in fact, owns the cause of

action, whether in full or in part, because make no mistake

that my decision is not an indication of what I believe or know

to be the ownership of those causes of action.

a holding or a finding that the estate is entitled to bring the

cause of action.

should be set up in the appropriate manner so that this Court

So this is not

That matter still needs to be determined.

10

can look at it, and I think at that point Mr. Cuevas perhaps

11

you will get some of the evidentiary hearings that you are

12

looking for.

It

All About The Tea


13

MR. CUEVAS:

14

THE COURT:

15

'

I appreciate that, Your Honor.

All right.

MR. KOPELMAN:

Thank you.

Judge, I did get contacted by a

16 'I creditor in this case.


THE COURT:

17

I am done ruling so unless you have

18

something to question as far as reopening I do not want to hear

19

it.

Thank you.
(Adjourned 12:22: p.m.)

20

I N D E X

21
22

Motion by Mr. Kopelman

23

Response by Mr. Cuervas

24

The Court:

25

Dated:

Decision

2
14
39

June 9, 2016

D R A F T