1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 2 POSTED TO THE WEBSITE 3 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 In re: Case No. 24-24334-A-13 7 KENNETH G. WILKINSON,
8 9 Debtor. 10 KENNETH G. WILKINSON, et al., Adv. No. 25-02061 11 Plaintiffs, Memorandum Regarding Motions for 12 Order Imposing Sanctions and V. Disqualifying Opposing Counsel, ECF 13 No. 24 14 PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16 17 18 Argued and submitted on August 19, 2025 19 at Sacramento, California 20 21 Honorable Fredrick E. Clement, Bankruptcy Judge Presiding 22 23 Kenneth Wilkinson, in propria persona; Kelly G. Appearances: Wilkinson, in propria persona; Jillian Benbow, 24 Aldridge Pite LLP for Aldridge Pite LLP; and Kathryn A. Moorer, Wright, Finley & Zalk, LLP for PHH Mortgage 25 Corporation, Western Progressive Trustee, LLC; Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.; JP Morgan Chase, 26 as Trustee for Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc; Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, 27 Series 2003-RP-1; and Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP 1 Father and son homeowners, acting propria persona, seek to 2 sanction and disqualify two opposing law firms who represent a 3 foreclosing lender, and ancillary players, from acting in the present 4 adversary proceeding. In support of their motion, they cite the 5 firms’ “legally frivolous arguments” and “direct, factual 6 misrepresentations” and their status as “indispensable” witnesses in 7 the action. Should the court grant the motion? 8 I. FACTS 9 Kenneth G. Wilkinson and Kelly G. Wilkinson (“plaintiffs 10 Wilkinson”) are engaged in a dispute with the holders of the note and 11 deed of trust against the home in which they reside, 3961 Nugget Lane, 12 Placerville, California (“the property”). The Wilkinsons reside on 13 the property.1 14 Lei Anne Wilkinson acquired the property. Ex. A & B, Mot. 15 Dismiss Compl. ECF No. 14. In 1999, Lei Anne Wilkinson executed a 16 promissory note in the amount of $136,000 and deed of trust against 17 the property in favor of BYL Bank. Id. at Ex. C. Over time the 18 promissory note and deed of trust were assigned to other financial 19 institutions, terminating with the Bank of New York Mellon Trust 20 Company. Id. at D-I. 21 In 2020, Lei Anne Wilkinson died. Findings and Recommendations 22 2:12, Wilkinson v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al., No. 2:24-cv-1416 23 (E.D. Cal. February 20, 2025), adopted Order ECF No. 31. Her ashes 24 are scattered on the property. Kelly Wilkinson decl. ¶¶ 4, 6, ECF No. 25
26 1 For the most part, the motions are unsupported by relevant evidence. See Kenneth G. Wilkson decl., ECF No. 29; Kelly G. Wilkinson decl., ECF No. 28. 27 The court has gleaned the following facts from the record and ancillary filings. For the purpose of context only, the court takes judicial notice of 1 28: Kenneth Wilkinson ¶ 2, ECF No. 29. Thereafter, the property 2 passed to the plaintiffs Wilkinson. Findings and Recommendations 3 2:12, Wilkinson, 2:24-cv-1416. 4 In 2021, the loan went into default for non-payment. Id. at 5 2:13-14. Thereafter, Western Progressive, LLC, acting as the trustee 6 for the Bank of New York Mellon, issued a Notice of Default and 7 Election to Sell. Ex. J., Mot. to Dismiss Compl., ECF No. 14. 8 In the spring of 2024, Western Progressive, LLC recorded its 9 Notice of Trustee’s Sale. Ex. K, Mot. Dismiss Compl. ECF No. 14. The 10 sale was scheduled for May 2024. 11 Thereafter, Kenneth G. Wilkinson and Kelly G. Wilkinson filed an 12 action in the United States District Court against PHH Mortgage 13 Corporation and Western Progressive LLC. Compl. ECF No. 1. The 14 complaint contended that defendants PHH Mortgage Corporation and 15 Western Progressive LLC were “attempting to enforce a void mortgage 16 contract” and included causes of action for breach of contract, breach 17 of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, injunctive relief, and 18 quiet title. Am. Compl., ECF No. 10. Defendants PHH Mortgage 19 Corporation and Western Progressive LLC moved to dismiss the 20 complaint. Kathryn Anne Moorer and Wright Finlay & Zak, LLP were 21 counsel of record for the defendants. Finding a lack of standing on 22 the part of Kenneth G. Wilkinson and Kelly G. Wilkinson, the district 23 court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. Findings and 24 Recommendations 2:12, Wilkinson v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, No. 2:24- 25 cv-1416 (E.D. Cal. February 20, 2025), adopted Order ECF No. 31. 26 On September 26, 2024, Western Progressive, LLC conducted the 27 foreclosure sale for the property and the holder of the note and deed 1 bidder. Ex. L, Mot. Dismiss Compl. ECF No. 14. 2 On September 27, 2024, the day following the foreclosure sale, 3 Kenneth G. Wilkinson filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Schedule 4 A/B listed Single-family home located at 3961 Nugget Lane, Placerville 5 and described its value as $325,000. Schedule A/B, ECF No. 20. 6 Schedule D listed a secured debt against the property of $267,302 in 7 favor of PHH Mortgage Corporation. Schedule D, ECF No. 20. Western 8 Progressive LLC and Bank of New York Mellon were also listed as 9 secured creditors. Notwithstanding the foreclosure sale on the day 10 prior to filing bankruptcy, Kenneth G. Wilkinson answered “No” to the 11 question: “Within 1 year before you filed for bankruptcy, was any of 12 your property repossessed, foreclosed, garnished, attached, seized, or 13 levied?” Statement of Financial Affairs No. 10, ECF No. 21. The 14 debtor has proposed, but not confirmed, a plan. 15 On December 5, 2024, Western Progressive, LLC recorded the 16 Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale in favor of the Bank of New York Mellon Trust 17 Company. Ex. L, Mot. Dismiss Compl. ECF No. 14. 18 Thereafter, the plaintiffs Wilkinson brought the instant 19 adversary proceeding against PHH Mortgage Corporation; Western 20 Progressive, LLC; Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Bank of New York Mellon 21 Trust, and Aldridge Pite LLP. The complaint pleads causes of action 22 for declaratory relief; unconscionable contract, violation of the Fair 23 Debt Collections Practices Act, failure of consideration, and 24 violation of the stay. As to the first four causes of action, i.e. 25 those relating to the 1999 loan against the property, the plaintiffs 26 contend: 27 1.1. COMPLAINANTS KENNETH G. WILKINSON and KELLY G. WILKINSON, private heirs and sole beneficiaries to Lei Anne 1 residential property located at 3961 Nugget Lane, Placerville, California Republic (the "Property"). 2 1.2. This interest includes lawful right of habitation, 3 inheritance, and right of possession, secured under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to 4 the Constitution for the United States of America, and common law heirship. 5 1.3. The non-judicial foreclosure initiated and actions 6 taken by DEFENDANTS constitute an unconscionable deprivation of COMPLAINANTS' substantive right to shelter, 7 unsupported by contract, judicial authority, or verified standing by Defendants. 8 1.4. At its core, this action challenges the extinguishment 9 of COMPLAINANTS' unalienable and substantive right to shelter through an extra-judicial, corporate-driven process 10 based on a transaction alleged to be void and unconscionable from its inception, in direct contravention 11 of fundamental constitutional protections. 12 Compl. ¶¶ 1.1-1.4, ECF No. 1. 13 As to the fifth cause of action, viz., violation of the stay, the 14 plaintiffs Wilkinson contend: 15 6.28.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 2 POSTED TO THE WEBSITE 3 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 In re: Case No. 24-24334-A-13 7 KENNETH G. WILKINSON,
8 9 Debtor. 10 KENNETH G. WILKINSON, et al., Adv. No. 25-02061 11 Plaintiffs, Memorandum Regarding Motions for 12 Order Imposing Sanctions and V. Disqualifying Opposing Counsel, ECF 13 No. 24 14 PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16 17 18 Argued and submitted on August 19, 2025 19 at Sacramento, California 20 21 Honorable Fredrick E. Clement, Bankruptcy Judge Presiding 22 23 Kenneth Wilkinson, in propria persona; Kelly G. Appearances: Wilkinson, in propria persona; Jillian Benbow, 24 Aldridge Pite LLP for Aldridge Pite LLP; and Kathryn A. Moorer, Wright, Finley & Zalk, LLP for PHH Mortgage 25 Corporation, Western Progressive Trustee, LLC; Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.; JP Morgan Chase, 26 as Trustee for Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc; Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, 27 Series 2003-RP-1; and Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP 1 Father and son homeowners, acting propria persona, seek to 2 sanction and disqualify two opposing law firms who represent a 3 foreclosing lender, and ancillary players, from acting in the present 4 adversary proceeding. In support of their motion, they cite the 5 firms’ “legally frivolous arguments” and “direct, factual 6 misrepresentations” and their status as “indispensable” witnesses in 7 the action. Should the court grant the motion? 8 I. FACTS 9 Kenneth G. Wilkinson and Kelly G. Wilkinson (“plaintiffs 10 Wilkinson”) are engaged in a dispute with the holders of the note and 11 deed of trust against the home in which they reside, 3961 Nugget Lane, 12 Placerville, California (“the property”). The Wilkinsons reside on 13 the property.1 14 Lei Anne Wilkinson acquired the property. Ex. A & B, Mot. 15 Dismiss Compl. ECF No. 14. In 1999, Lei Anne Wilkinson executed a 16 promissory note in the amount of $136,000 and deed of trust against 17 the property in favor of BYL Bank. Id. at Ex. C. Over time the 18 promissory note and deed of trust were assigned to other financial 19 institutions, terminating with the Bank of New York Mellon Trust 20 Company. Id. at D-I. 21 In 2020, Lei Anne Wilkinson died. Findings and Recommendations 22 2:12, Wilkinson v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al., No. 2:24-cv-1416 23 (E.D. Cal. February 20, 2025), adopted Order ECF No. 31. Her ashes 24 are scattered on the property. Kelly Wilkinson decl. ¶¶ 4, 6, ECF No. 25
26 1 For the most part, the motions are unsupported by relevant evidence. See Kenneth G. Wilkson decl., ECF No. 29; Kelly G. Wilkinson decl., ECF No. 28. 27 The court has gleaned the following facts from the record and ancillary filings. For the purpose of context only, the court takes judicial notice of 1 28: Kenneth Wilkinson ¶ 2, ECF No. 29. Thereafter, the property 2 passed to the plaintiffs Wilkinson. Findings and Recommendations 3 2:12, Wilkinson, 2:24-cv-1416. 4 In 2021, the loan went into default for non-payment. Id. at 5 2:13-14. Thereafter, Western Progressive, LLC, acting as the trustee 6 for the Bank of New York Mellon, issued a Notice of Default and 7 Election to Sell. Ex. J., Mot. to Dismiss Compl., ECF No. 14. 8 In the spring of 2024, Western Progressive, LLC recorded its 9 Notice of Trustee’s Sale. Ex. K, Mot. Dismiss Compl. ECF No. 14. The 10 sale was scheduled for May 2024. 11 Thereafter, Kenneth G. Wilkinson and Kelly G. Wilkinson filed an 12 action in the United States District Court against PHH Mortgage 13 Corporation and Western Progressive LLC. Compl. ECF No. 1. The 14 complaint contended that defendants PHH Mortgage Corporation and 15 Western Progressive LLC were “attempting to enforce a void mortgage 16 contract” and included causes of action for breach of contract, breach 17 of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, injunctive relief, and 18 quiet title. Am. Compl., ECF No. 10. Defendants PHH Mortgage 19 Corporation and Western Progressive LLC moved to dismiss the 20 complaint. Kathryn Anne Moorer and Wright Finlay & Zak, LLP were 21 counsel of record for the defendants. Finding a lack of standing on 22 the part of Kenneth G. Wilkinson and Kelly G. Wilkinson, the district 23 court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. Findings and 24 Recommendations 2:12, Wilkinson v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, No. 2:24- 25 cv-1416 (E.D. Cal. February 20, 2025), adopted Order ECF No. 31. 26 On September 26, 2024, Western Progressive, LLC conducted the 27 foreclosure sale for the property and the holder of the note and deed 1 bidder. Ex. L, Mot. Dismiss Compl. ECF No. 14. 2 On September 27, 2024, the day following the foreclosure sale, 3 Kenneth G. Wilkinson filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Schedule 4 A/B listed Single-family home located at 3961 Nugget Lane, Placerville 5 and described its value as $325,000. Schedule A/B, ECF No. 20. 6 Schedule D listed a secured debt against the property of $267,302 in 7 favor of PHH Mortgage Corporation. Schedule D, ECF No. 20. Western 8 Progressive LLC and Bank of New York Mellon were also listed as 9 secured creditors. Notwithstanding the foreclosure sale on the day 10 prior to filing bankruptcy, Kenneth G. Wilkinson answered “No” to the 11 question: “Within 1 year before you filed for bankruptcy, was any of 12 your property repossessed, foreclosed, garnished, attached, seized, or 13 levied?” Statement of Financial Affairs No. 10, ECF No. 21. The 14 debtor has proposed, but not confirmed, a plan. 15 On December 5, 2024, Western Progressive, LLC recorded the 16 Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale in favor of the Bank of New York Mellon Trust 17 Company. Ex. L, Mot. Dismiss Compl. ECF No. 14. 18 Thereafter, the plaintiffs Wilkinson brought the instant 19 adversary proceeding against PHH Mortgage Corporation; Western 20 Progressive, LLC; Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Bank of New York Mellon 21 Trust, and Aldridge Pite LLP. The complaint pleads causes of action 22 for declaratory relief; unconscionable contract, violation of the Fair 23 Debt Collections Practices Act, failure of consideration, and 24 violation of the stay. As to the first four causes of action, i.e. 25 those relating to the 1999 loan against the property, the plaintiffs 26 contend: 27 1.1. COMPLAINANTS KENNETH G. WILKINSON and KELLY G. WILKINSON, private heirs and sole beneficiaries to Lei Anne 1 residential property located at 3961 Nugget Lane, Placerville, California Republic (the "Property"). 2 1.2. This interest includes lawful right of habitation, 3 inheritance, and right of possession, secured under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to 4 the Constitution for the United States of America, and common law heirship. 5 1.3. The non-judicial foreclosure initiated and actions 6 taken by DEFENDANTS constitute an unconscionable deprivation of COMPLAINANTS' substantive right to shelter, 7 unsupported by contract, judicial authority, or verified standing by Defendants. 8 1.4. At its core, this action challenges the extinguishment 9 of COMPLAINANTS' unalienable and substantive right to shelter through an extra-judicial, corporate-driven process 10 based on a transaction alleged to be void and unconscionable from its inception, in direct contravention 11 of fundamental constitutional protections. 12 Compl. ¶¶ 1.1-1.4, ECF No. 1. 13 As to the fifth cause of action, viz., violation of the stay, the 14 plaintiffs Wilkinson contend: 15 6.28. Despite the automatic stay being in full force and effect, and with full knowledge thereof, Defendant BYNM, 16 acting by and through its agents, which may include Defendants WP, PHH, WFZ and/or APL, willfully violated the 17 automatic stay by causing the recordation of the Trustee's Deed Upon Sale (or similar instrument purporting to 18 effectuate the pre-stay foreclosure sale of September 26, 2024) concerning the Property on or about December 5, 2024, 19 in the official records of El Dorado County, 9 California Doc# 2024-0035609. 20 6.29. This act of recording the Trustee's Deed Upon Sale 21 during the pendency of the automatic stay II constituted an unlawful act to exercise control over property of the 22 estate, an act to perfect a lien against property of the estate, and an act to enforce a pre-petition claim against 23 the Debtor and property of the estate, all in direct violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). 24 Compl. ¶¶ 6.28-6.29, ECF No. 1 (emphasis added). 25 The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 26 12(b)(6); the plaintiffs oppose those motions, which remain pending. 27 1 II. PROCEDURE 2 The Wilkinsons move for an order: (1) imposing sanctions against 3 defendants Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP and Aldridge Pite LLP for 4 “legally frivolous arguments” and “direct, factual 5 misrepresentations,” Mot. 2:3-13, ECF No. 24; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011; 6 28 U.S.C. § 1927; and (2) disqualifying those firms representing the 7 other defendants because they are “indispensable” witnesses in the 8 action, Mot. 6:4-9, ECF No. 24. 9 III. JURISDICTION 10 This court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a)-(b), 157(b); 11 see also General Order No. 182 of the Eastern District of California. 12 Excepting 28 U.S.C. § 1927, all matters fall within the bankruptcy 13 court’s core jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) (arising “under title 14 11” or “arising in” cases under title 11) as to the: (1) motion for 15 sanctions, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(O); 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), Fed. R. 16 Bankr. P. 9011; In re La Casa de la Raza, Inc., No. 9:16-BK-10331-PC, 17 2017 WL 3661624, at *2 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2017); and (2) 18 motion to disqualify, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(O); In re Johore Inv. Co. 19 (U.S.A.), Inc., 157 B.R. 671, 674 (D. Haw. 1985). 20 IV. DISCUSSION 21 A. Rule 9011 22 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011 contains a 21-day safe 23 harbor. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c)(2)(B). That rule requires a moving 24 party to serve the motion for sanctions on the opposing party and/or 25 counsel 21 days prior to filing it. Id. Doing so gives the target 26 firm or party an opportunity to correct its missteps, if any, and 27 insulate itself from sanctions. 1 court from granting relief. Barber v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707, 709 (9th 2 Cir. 1998) (Rule 11); Truesdell v. S. California Permanente Med. Grp., 3 293 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir. 2002); In re Crystal Cathedral 4 Ministries, No. 2:12-BK-15665-RK, 2020 WL 1649619, at *23 (Bankr. C.D. 5 Cal. Mar. 31, 2020), aff'd, No. 2:12-BK-15665-RK, 2021 WL 2182975 6 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. May 28, 2021) (Rule 9011). Here, the motion was 7 served on July 14, 2025, Certificate of Service, ECF No. 31; it was 8 filed one day later, July 15, 2025. That said, the movant has failed 9 to comply with the safe harbor provision and must be denied. 10 B. 28 U.S.C. § 1927 11 In the alternative, the movant points to § 1927. 12 Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who 13 so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy 14 personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct. 15 28 U.S.C. § 1927. 16 Movants overlook well-established precedent that hold that 17 bankruptcy courts lack authority to act under § 1927. In re Sandoval, 18 186 B.R. 490, 495 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995); In re Courtesy Inns, Ltd., 19 Inc., 40 F.3d 1084, 1085 (10th Cir. 1994). As a result, the motion 20 will be denied. 21 C. Disqualification of Opposing Counsel 22 This court has authority to disqualify opposing counsel where a 23 conflict of interest exists. Schiessle v. Stephens, 717 F.2d 417, 418 24 (7th Cir. 1983). The movant bears the burden of proof. Hernandez v. 25 Guglielmo, 796 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1289 (D. Nev. 2011) 26 The movant bears the burden of establishing facts to 27 justify disqualification. A court may disqualify an attorney from representing a party when there is (1) a clear violation of the professional rules of conduct (2) 1 that affects the public view of the judicial system or the integrity of the Court and (3) is serious enough to 2 outweigh the party's interest in having the counsel of its choice. The concerns identified in the motion to disqualify 3 must not be “merely anticipatory and speculative.” “Given the seriousness of the matter, the movant has a ‘high 4 standard of proof to meet in order to prove that counsel should be disqualified.’ 5
6 Playup, Inc. v. Mintas, No. 221CV02129GMNNJK, 2023 WL 349499, at *1 (D. Nev. Jan. 20, 2023) (emphasis added; citations omitted). 7 8 State law provides the rule of decision. McMahon v. Whitney, No. 9 2:23-cv-01972-KJM-JDP, 2024 WL 1311788, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 10 2024); Persinger v. Cnty. of Placer, No. 2:24-CV-02967-DAD-CSK, 2025 11 WL 1993222, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2025). 12 The Rules of Professional Conduct describe the circumstances in 13 which an attorney may and may not appear both as counsel and as a 14 witness in the same action. 15 (a) A lawyer shall not act as an advocate in a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness unless: 16 (1) the lawyer’s testimony relates to an uncontested 17 issue or matter; 18 (2) the lawyer’s testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or 19 (3) the lawyer has obtained informed written consent* 20 from the client... 21 (b) A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm* is likely to be called 22 as a witness unless precluded from doing so by rule 1.7 [current clients] or rule 1.9 [duties to former clients].2 23 California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7. 24 Here, there is no clear violation of the California Rules of 25 Professional Conduct, Playup, Inc., 2023 WL 349499 at *1. 26 27 2 It appears that both California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 and 1.9 are 1 There is not a per se disqualification of counsel from acting as 2 counsel or record and as a witness. Movants seek to disqualify entire 3 firms, not individual attorneys. Mot. 1:25-2:2, ECF No. 24. But in 4 most cases, it is entirely permissible for one attorney within a firm 5 to act as counsel of record and another attorney to serve as a 6 witness. Rule 3.7(b). 7 Moreover, even when a single attorney acts as both an attorney 8 and as a witness, at least three exceptions to the disqualification 9 rule exist: (1) uncontested matters; (2) the value or nature of 10 services rendered; and (3) contested matters for which informed 11 written consent of the client is obtained. 12 Finally, an independent review of the record does not support 13 that either firm or any of its attorneys are “indispensable” 14 witnesses. As to the first four causes of action, viz., that the note 15 and deed of trust void, the complaint arises from events that occurred 16 26 years ago. Mem. P.& A., 16:9-20, ECF No. 30. As to the fifth cause 17 of action, i.e., violation of the stay by recordation of the Trustee’s 18 Deed Upon Sale on December 5, 2024, the evidence in support of the law 19 firms’ involvement is weak. Compare, Verified Compl. ¶¶ 6.25-6.28, 20 ECF No. 1 (firms “may” have been involved) with Kenneth G. Wilkinson 21 decl., ECF No. 29 (omitting any reference to firm involvement) and 22 Kelly G. Wilkinson decl., ECF No. 28 (same) and Trustee’s Deed Upon 23 Sale, ECF No. 14 (indicating that the recording was requested by 24 Premium Title of California). 25 Having failed to sustain their burden of proof, the motions will 26 be denied. 27 / 1 Vv. CONCLUSION 2 For each of these reasons, the court will deny the motions. An 3 order will issue from chambers. 4 Dated: September 16, 2025 MfS. 6 ‘ Fredrick E. Clement 7 United States Bankruptcy Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10
1 Instructions to Clerk of Court
2 Service List - Not Part of Order/Judgment
3 The Clerk of Court is instructed to send the Order/Judgment or other court generated document transmitted herewith to the parties below. The Clerk of Court will send the document 4 via the BNC, if checked ____, via the U.S. mail.
6 Plaintiff(s) Attorneys for the Defendant(s)
7 Bankruptcy Trustee (if appointed in the case) Office of the U.S. Trustee Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse 8 501 I Street, Room 7-500 9 Sacramento, CA 95814 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27