Silva v. Group Practice Affiliates

Fifth Circuit

Silva v. Group Practice Affiliates

125 F. App'x 541

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 2005

Docket04-51082

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 F. App'x 541 (Silva v. Group Practice Affiliates) 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

Silva v. Group Practice Affiliates, 125 F. App'x 541 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

The district court correctly dismissed the case because ■ the plaintiffs claims against the defendants are the property of the bankruptcy estate and the plaintiff does not have standing. 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing additional time to obtain ratification, join-der, or substitution of the bankruptcy trus *542 tee because the plaintiffs pursuit of the claims in his own name was not the result of an understandable mistake. See Wieburg v. GTE Southwest, Inc., 272 F.3d 302, 308 (5th Cir.2001). Silva was informed several times that his claims against the defendants were the property of the bankruptcy estate. Instead of attempting to correct the mistake, Silva filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in an attempt to prohibit the bankruptcy trustee from entering the case. AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

The district court correctly dismissed the case because ■ the plaintiffs claims against the defendants are the property of the bankruptcy estate and the plaintiff does not have standing. 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing additional time to obtain ratification, join-der, or substitution of the bankruptcy trus *542 tee because the plaintiffs pursuit of the claims in his own name was not the result of an understandable mistake. See Wieburg v. GTE Southwest, Inc., 272 F.3d 302, 308 (5th Cir.2001). Silva was informed several times that his claims against the defendants were the property of the bankruptcy estate. Instead of attempting to correct the mistake, Silva filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in an attempt to prohibit the bankruptcy trustee from entering the case. AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be 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)

125 F. App'x 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silva-v-group-practice-affiliates-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack