Jessie R. Thomas and Taheesha Thomas

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 18, 2023
Docket5:18-bk-03265
StatusUnknown

This text of Jessie R. Thomas and Taheesha Thomas (Jessie R. Thomas and Taheesha Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jessie R. Thomas and Taheesha Thomas, (Pa. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re: : Chapter 13 : Jessie R. Thomas, : Case No. 5:18-03265-MJC Taheesha Thomas, : : Debtors. : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

O P I N I O N Pending before the Court is the Amended Seventh Interim Application of Attorney for Chapter 13 Debtor for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (“Seventh Interim Application”) that was filed on May 11, 2022, Dkt. # 149, by Debtors’ Counsel, Mr. Gary J. Imblum, Esquire (“Counsel” or “Mr. Imblum”). Mr. Imblum seeks approval of $1,596.00 in compensation and reimbursement of expense of $77.76 for the period from April 30, 2021 through August 24, 2021. Also before the Court for review are Counsel’s six previous interim fee applications, which, combined with the Seventh Interim Application, total $26,501.19, in what the Court considers a “routine” Chapter 13 case in this District. For the reasons stated below, the fee applications will be reduced and interim compensation in the amount of $13,337.25 and reimbursement of expenses of $1,596.79 will be approved. I. JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§157 and 1334 and the March 11, 2016 Standing Order of Reference of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(2)(A), (B), and (O). Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1409(a). II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY At the outset of this case, Mr. Imblum filed his Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure

2016(b) Disclosure of Compensation on October 1, 2018. See Dkt. # 21. It reflected that Mr. Imblum received from Debtors a pre-petition retainer in the sum of $1,585.00 and that he would bill against the retainer at an hourly rate of $295.00, $235.00 for associate counsel, and $135.00 for paralegal time on a lodestar basis. Nothing in the record indicates if Counsel ever quoted an estimated total fee to Debtors. Mr. Imblum filed his first Application of Attorney for Chapter 13 Debtor for Compensation

and Reimbursement of Expenses (“First Interim Application”) on March 18, 2019, seeking $7,901.75 in attorney’s fees and $729.44 in costs for the period July 6, 2018 through February 13, 2019. See Dkt. # 58. Mr. Imblum filed six subsequent interim fee applications as follows:1  March 4, 2020 - $2,560.00 of fees and $97.05 in costs for February 4, 2019 to September 25, 2019 (“Second Interim Application”).2 See Dkt. # 81.

 May 8, 2020 - $7,223.00 of fees and $235.35 in costs for September 26, 2019 to April 13, 2020 (“Third Interim Application”). See Dkt. # 105.

 September 28, 2020 - $1,454.50 of fees and $104.85 in costs for April 14, 2020 to September 9, 2020 (“Fourth Interim Application”). See Dkt. # 111.

 January 26, 2021 - $1,863.00 of fees and $75.05 in costs for September 10, 2020 to November 24, 2020 (“Fifth Interim Application”). See Dkt. #115.

1 Mr. Imblum billed fees for preparation of each of these Applications of an average of $408.00 each. Additionally, Mr. Imblum billed costs of approximately $70.00 for each of these Applications.

2 There was some overlap between the First and Second Interim Applications, which was corrected with the amended applications.  June 11, 2021 - $2,165.50 of fees and $277.94 in costs for November 25, 2020 to April 29, 2021 (“Sixth Interim Application”). See Dkt. # 125.

 November 8, 2021 - $1,736.00 of fees and $77.76 in costs for April 30, 2021 to August 24, 2021 (“Seventh Interim Application”). See Dkt. # 131.

Each of these applications, exclusive of the Seventh Interim Application, were approved on an interim basis.3 See Dkt. #s 59, 94, 108, 112, 118, & 126. In total, the seven applications seek a staggering $24,903.75 in compensation and $1,597.44 in expenses, and because the case hasn’t been completed yet, the Court assumes Counsel will seek approval of additional applications. Upon review of the Seventh Interim Application4 and taking into account the six previous applications, the Court issued an Order to Mr. Imblum to show cause why his applications for compensation should be approved based upon, inter alia, the standards as set forth in In re Busy Beaver Building Centers, Inc., 19 F.3d 833 (3d Cir. 1994). See Order, dated February 24, 2022, Dkt. # 140. On April 21, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the applications, where Mr. Imblum appeared but Debtors did not. At the conclusion of the hearing, the matter was taken under advisement and Mr. Imblum indicated that he would submit amended applications based upon the

3 This case was previously assigned to Judge Robert N. Opel, II, until his retirement, and then to Chief Bankruptcy Judge Henry W. Van Eck. This case was reassigned to the undersigned Judge upon appointment to the bench on July 30, 2021. See Dkt. # 127. It is worth noting that the Fee Applications taken separately may not appear excessive but when taken together and totaling over $25,000 on an interim basis, they are, for the reasons set forth below, clearly excessive in this routine case.

4 The Court is also not aware of a “routine” consumer bankruptcy case in this District having seven interim fee applications and possibly more to come. concerns addressed at the hearing. Accordingly, Mr. Imblum filed amended applications on May 11, 2022 (collectively “Amended Fee Applications”):

 First Amended - $7,278.25 of fees, a reduction of $623.50. See Dkt. # 143.  Second Amended - $1,841.50 of fees, a reduction of $718.50. See Dkt. # 144.  Third Amended - $6,599.00 of fees, a reduction of $624.00. See Dkt. # 145.  Fourth Amended - $1,131.50 of fees, a reduction of $323.00. See Dkt. # 146.  Fifth Amended - $1,763.50 of fees, a reduction of $99.50. See Dkt. # 147.  Sixth Amended - $1,885.50 of fees, a reduction of $280.00. See Dkt. # 148.  Seventh Amended - $1,596.00 of fees, a reduction of $140.00. See Dkt. # 149.

The amendments reduced the total requested compensation by $2,808.50. This brought the total requested compensation for Amended Fee Applications down to $22,095.25. While the Amended Fee Applications were under advisement, Mr. Imblum withdrew the

Amended Fee Applications (except for the Seventh Amended), without explanation. See Dkt. # 158 – 163. Not knowing the impetus for withdrawal of the amended applications and choosing not to speculate on whether Counsel was abandoning any further claim for fees, the Court set a status conference. See Dkt. # 164. At the status conference, Counsel indicated that he withdrew the amended fee applications because he had stopped receiving payments from the Chapter 13 Trustee under the plan due to the fee applications being under advisement by the Court.5

5 The Chapter 13 Trustee’s records indicate that to date, Debtors have paid into the estate a total of $77,470.66 and Mr. Imblum has been paid $19,954.28 from these funds. Mr. Imblum subsequently refiled the Amended Fee Applications (First through Six) on March 24, 2023. See Dkt. # 166 – 171. The Amended Fee Applications are ripe for disposition.6

III.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Zolfo, Cooper & Co. v. Sunbeam-Oster Company, Inc
50 F.3d 253 (Third Circuit, 1995)
In Re Campbell
259 B.R. 615 (N.D. Ohio, 2001)
Messner v. Commerce Bank/Harrisburg, N.A. (In Re Smith)
331 B.R. 622 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2005)
In Re Keller Financial Services of Florida, Inc.
248 B.R. 859 (M.D. Florida, 2000)
In Re Pettibone Corp.
74 B.R. 293 (N.D. Illinois, 1987)
In Re Szymczak
246 B.R. 774 (D. New Jersey, 2000)
In Re Leonard Jed Co.
103 B.R. 706 (D. Maryland, 1989)
In Re Oakes
135 B.R. 511 (N.D. Ohio, 1991)
In Re Metro Transportation Co.
107 B.R. 50 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1989)
In Re the Vogue
92 B.R. 717 (E.D. Michigan, 1988)
In Re Fleming Companies, Inc.
304 B.R. 85 (D. Delaware, 2003)
In Re Maxine's, Inc.
304 B.R. 245 (D. Maryland, 2003)
Cohen & Thiros, P.C. v. Keen Enterprises, Inc.
44 B.R. 570 (N.D. Indiana, 1984)
In Re Cenargo International, PLC
294 B.R. 571 (S.D. New York, 2003)
In Re Maruko Inc.
160 B.R. 633 (S.D. California, 1993)
In Re Jefsaba, Inc.
172 B.R. 786 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1994)
In Re Hotel Associates, Inc.
15 B.R. 487 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jessie R. Thomas and Taheesha Thomas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jessie-r-thomas-and-taheesha-thomas-pamb-2023.