Olick v. Commercial State Bank

Fifth Circuit

Olick v. Commercial State Bank

176 F. App'x 452, 176 Fed. Appx. 452, 176 F. App’x 452, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9028, 2006 WL 997192

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 2006

Docket05-50583

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 176 F. App'x 452 (Olick v. Commercial State Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Olick v. Commercial State Bank, 176 F. App'x 452, 176 Fed. Appx. 452, 176 F. App’x 452, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9028, 2006 WL 997192 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

*453 The appellant, Thomas Olick, appeals from the judgment of the District Court in this dispute over the ownership and control of a piece of oh producing property located in Texas. Appellant asserts that the Bankruptcy Court improperly denied his motion to amend his complaint under Bankruptcy Rule 7015, which adopts F.R.C.P. Rule 15. Matter of Schwager, 121 F.3d 177, 186 (1997). The appellant argues that the denial of this motion without comment or explanation of the basis for denial was an abuse of discretion. However, the appellant has not provided a record of the hearing at which the motion was denied for this court to review and has made inconsistent statements on this point, arguing before the District Court that “the lower court opined that it would not grant Appellant’s B.R. 7015 Motion because doing so might delay trial against the Appellees.” Additionally, while an explanation of the reasons for a denial of a motion to amend is strongly preferred, it is not an abuse of discretion where the reasons for denial are apparent. Mayeaux v. Louisiana Health Serv. and Indem. Co., 376 F.3d 420, 426-427 (5th Cir.2004). Here, the motion to amend the complaint adding new defendants was made five months after the complaint was filed, requested to plead different theories against different parties, and was thus properly denied. Id. at 427-28.

The appellant further contends that default judgments by a Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Court possessed res judicata status as to issues in this case. Res judicata is inapplicable to bankruptcy nondischargeability proceedings. In re Pancake, 106 F.3d 1242, 1244 (5th Cir.1997).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *453 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

*453 The appellant, Thomas Olick, appeals from the judgment of the District Court in this dispute over the ownership and control of a piece of oh producing property located in Texas. Appellant asserts that the Bankruptcy Court improperly denied his motion to amend his complaint under Bankruptcy Rule 7015, which adopts F.R.C.P. Rule 15. Matter of Schwager, 121 F.3d 177, 186 (1997). The appellant argues that the denial of this motion without comment or explanation of the basis for denial was an abuse of discretion. However, the appellant has not provided a record of the hearing at which the motion was denied for this court to review and has made inconsistent statements on this point, arguing before the District Court that “the lower court opined that it would not grant Appellant’s B.R. 7015 Motion because doing so might delay trial against the Appellees.” Additionally, while an explanation of the reasons for a denial of a motion to amend is strongly preferred, it is not an abuse of discretion where the reasons for denial are apparent. Mayeaux v. Louisiana Health Serv. and Indem. Co., 376 F.3d 420, 426-427 (5th Cir.2004). Here, the motion to amend the complaint adding new defendants was made five months after the complaint was filed, requested to plead different theories against different parties, and was thus properly denied. Id. at 427-28.

The appellant further contends that default judgments by a Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Court possessed res judicata status as to issues in this case. Res judicata is inapplicable to bankruptcy nondischargeability proceedings. In re Pancake, 106 F.3d 1242, 1244 (5th Cir.1997).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *453 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 F. App'x 452, 176 Fed. Appx. 452, 176 F. App’x 452, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9028, 2006 WL 997192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olick-v-commercial-state-bank-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack