Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Debtor,
DAVID G. BAKER,
Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON, United States Trustee for Region 1,
Appellee.
Before
Lynch, Kayatta, and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
In this case,
for relief from the automatic stay. Seven days later, on April 14,
Baker on behalf of Hoover filed a motion seeking sanctions against
BOA for violating the automatic stay provisions of the U.S.
- 3 -
Bankruptcy Code.
argued
that
rescheduling
the
foreclosure
constituted
an
Separately,
Baker
also
filed
on
Hoover's
behalf
an
The Trustee's
motion concerned cash that the debtor was spending even though the
cash was subject to a tax lien.
filed
with
the
bankruptcy
As Baker now
court,
wrote
that
"'cash
Having thus
- 5 -
11 U.S.C. 363(a)
(emphasis supplied).2
After
an
evidentiary
hearing,
the
bankruptcy
court
allowed the Trustee's motion and converted the case to one under
Chapter 7.
appeal.
- 6 -
He
The
to
"modification"
Baker
claims
have
had
in
mind
was
- 7 -
automatic stay before the rescheduled sale date, but must file
such a motion "promptly."
Next, in addressing the bankruptcy court's charge that
he misquoted the definition of "cash collateral" and misstated the
law in his objection to the Trustee's motion to convert or dismiss,
Baker doubled down on his prior arguments.
the bankruptcy court's "real issue" with his objection was the
merits of his argument, Baker proceeded to explain why the argument
that one must possess a consensual security interest over cash or
other property in order for that cash or property to be protected
as "cash collateral" was not frivolous.
argued that he had only found two cases on point after "thoroughly
research[ing]" the issue, and that although both of those cases
interpreted
the
statute
as
including
non-consensual
security
He
also argued that dictum in another case implied support for his
position, and that the "rule of the last antecedent"--whereby a
modifier
is
attributed
to
the
last
term
before
it--is
not
- 8 -
Id.
explained
the
difference
between
Id.
The
"paraphrasing"
and
Id.
Id.
Id. at *4.
- 9 -
It explained that
defenses,
advancing
arguments
contrary
to
express
Id. at *5.
Id.
II.
he filed with the bankruptcy court complied with Rule 9011, Baker
- 10 -
strict
liability
provision"
and
"ought
not
[be]
Young v. City of
Paragraph 8 is a flat
on it, even now Baker is unable to make any argument that the
statement he made in Paragraph 8 is supported by the cases he
cited.
Instead, he argues that the inaccuracy disappears if one
reads Paragraph 8 in conjunction with Paragraph 9, the first
sentence of which does accurately state what the cited cases say.
The remainder of Paragraph 9, though, clearly suggests that the
first sentence is itself no longer the law.
paragraphs are unintelligible, saying in form:
X when the law was obscure, and now the law is not obscure."
In
Indeed,
this
is
how
Baker
- 11 -
asks
us
to
read
that
paragraph, in substance.
his
motion
for
sanctions
over
two
months
before
the
reader
into
thinking
that
existing
authority
supported
- 12 -
"[i]f
the
reasonably
foreseeable
effect
of
[the]
for
an
otherwise
unsupported
position
by
materially
See Precision
Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States, 315 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2003) (affirming a reprimand under Rule 11 where the attorney
"in quoting from and citing published opinions, . . . distorted
what the opinions stated by leaving out significant portions of
the citations or cropping one of them").
C.
Bankruptcy courts often need to act quickly, and should
be able to assume that counsel are truthful.
- 13 -
made
in
pursuit
of
otherwise
well-grounded
filings.
The
Sanctioning artifice
that is the product of such zeal was well within the bankruptcy
court's discretion.
One loose end remains.
that he has not begun to comply with the bankruptcy court's order,
suggesting that American Bar Association accredited law schools
might not allow him to take the required course.
We therefore
- 14 -