McDow v. Mayton (In Re McDow)

379 B.R. 601, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91700
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia
DecidedDecember 13, 2007
DocketCivil 2:07cv442
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 379 B.R. 601 (McDow v. Mayton (In Re McDow)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McDow v. Mayton (In Re McDow), 379 B.R. 601, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91700 (E.D. Va. 2007).

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT G. DOUMAR, District Judge.

On September 28, 2007, W. Clarkson McDow, Jr., U.S. Trustee for Region Four, (“U.S.Trustee”) filed a complaint against the defendant John Hall Mayton, a/k/a John Hall (“Mayton”), seeking fines, disgorgement of fees, and injunctive relief for violations of 11 U.S.C. § 110. Mayton was served with process by mail, and failed to file a response or otherwise appear in this matter. On November 7, 2007, the Court held an initial pre-trial conference, at which the defendant failed to appear. On the same day, the Court entered an Order directing Mayton to respond to the Complaint and appear at a continued pre-trial conference on December 10, 2007, and directing the United States Marshal Service to personally serve Mayton with process at two known addresses. On December 10, 2007, the Court held its continued pre-trial conference. The defendant again failed to file a response or otherwise appear. Counsel for the U.S. Trustee appeared and indicated his intent to seek entry of default judgment granting the relief sought in the Complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr.P. *603 7055. On December 11, 2007, the U.S. Trustee filed a Motion for Default Judgment.

Having considered the written pleadings and representations of counsel, the Court finds as follows:

1. On August 6, 2007, Teddy Lee Burns (the “Debtor”) filed a voluntary petition under chapter 11, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division. On September 14, 2007, this Court withdrew reference of the case. On September 28, 2007, the U.S. Trustee filed the Complaint.

2. The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure apply to this proceeding. See, e.g., In re: Celotex Corp., 124 F.3d 619, 629 (4th Cir.1997); Anderson v. F.D.I.C., 918 F.2d 1139, 1143 n. 3 (4th Cir.1990). Fed. R. Bankr.P. 7004(b) authorizes service of a complaint on a defendant in an adversary proceeding by first class Untied States Mail.

3. Mayton has been properly served with process and has received timely notice of all proceedings in this matter.

4. Mayton was served with a Summons, a Complaint, and notice that his Answer was due by November 5, 2007, and that a pretrial scheduling conference would take place on November 7, 2007 using the following means as authorized by Fed. R. Bankr.P. 7004(b):

A. On October 5, 2007, Mayton was served by mail at 42034 67th Street W., Apt. E., Lancaster, CA 93536-3889.
B. On October 5, 2007, Mayton was served by email at jJiH@hotmail. com.
C. On November 2, 2007, Mayton was served by email at jomayt@aol. com.
D.On November 3, 2007, Mayton was contacted by voicemail at (432) 853-5711.

5. Mayton failed to file an Answer to the Complaint and failed to appear at the November 7, 2007, hearing.

6. Mayton was served with a Summons, a Complaint, and a Court Order stating that the Court would entertain the Trustee’s Motion for Default Judgment at a rescheduled December 10, 2007, hearing using the following means:

A. On November 16, 2007, a U.S. Marshal personally served Mayton’s mother, Lorraine Mayton, at 42034 67th Street W., Apt. E, Lancaster, CA 93536-3889.
B. A U.S. Marshal attempted to personally serve Mayton at 1814 John West Road # 215, Dallas, Texas 75228, but was informed by the manager of the building that May-ton had not lived there since 2005.
C. Mayton was served by email at jJi lI@hotmail. com.
D. Mayton was served by email at jomayt@aol. com.

7. Mayton failed to file a response to the Court’s Order and failed to appear at the December 10, 2007, hearing.

8. The allegations of the Complaint are deemed admitted.

9. The U.S. Trustee is entitled to the relief requested in the Complaint, except as otherwise provided below.

10. Mayton is an individual who has conducted business in the Eastern District of Virginia by drafting, for compensation, pleadings and documents to be filed in this Court and the United States Bankruptcy Court, and by giving legal advice to the Debtor concerning his proceedings before this Court and the United States Bankruptcy Court.

*604 11. Mayton represented to the Debtor that he resides in Dallas, Texas. Mayton lists his address as 1814 John West Road # 215, Dallas, Texas 75228. The return of service filed by the U.S. Marshal indicates that Mayton has not lived at this address since 2005. According to the U.S. Postal Service, Mayton’s mail from this address has been forwarded to his mother’s residence, at 42034 67th Street W, Apt. E, Lancaster, California 93536-3889.

12. Mayton is a “person, other than an attorney for the debtor or an employee of such attorney under the direct supervision of such attorney,” and is a “bankruptcy petition preparer,” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 110.

13. At all times relevant hereto, May-ton prepared “documents for filing” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 110.

14. Mayton is not licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia. He is not licensed to practice as an attorney in the states of Texas, California, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, or Louisiana. He is not now, and has never been, admitted to practice before this Court, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, or the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

15. Mayton is not employed by an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia or admitted to practice before this Court or the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

16. Mayton is not employed by an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of North Carolina or admitted to practice before any state or federal court in North Carolina.

17. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, Mayton distributed bankruptcy advice under the name “John Hall” via an internet website known as “umw. allexperts.com.”

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

Related

United States Trustee v. Burton (In re Rosario)
493 B.R. 292 (D. Massachusetts, 2013)
Wieland v. Assaf (In re Briones-Coroy)
481 B.R. 685 (D. Colorado, 2012)
McDow v. Skinner (In Re Jay)
446 B.R. 227 (E.D. Virginia, 2010)
In Re Evans
413 B.R. 315 (E.D. Virginia, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
379 B.R. 601, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdow-v-mayton-in-re-mcdow-vaed-2007.