Arthur M. Greenwald

How Judge Greenwald rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Greenwald no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California
Position
bankruptcy
Status
Deceased
Served
1988–2005
Appointed by
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Commissioned
1988
Signed orders read
11

How Judge Greenwald decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

A negotiated interest rate on a marital equalization payment was enforced where the parties and state court had approved it and the rate remained equitable.

“The court finds that the rate of interest of fifteen percent per annum on the unpaid balance of the Equalization Payment is fair and equitable”

A homestead survived weekday absences where the debtors maintained the property and returned on weekends and holidays.

“the court finds that the Debtors’ absence from the Bakersfield Property was temporary on the petition date”

A late tax-claim amendment was disallowed where the government knew of the case and deadlines and the delay would reduce other creditors' distribution.

“The disallowance of the amendment will not result in a windfall to which unsecured creditors are not entitled”

Procedural preferences

The court applied the limitations period from the original reorganization filing rather than restarting it when the case converted and a new trustee was appointed.

“the conversion to a Chapter 7 proceeding does not create a new period of limitations prescribed under § 546(a)”

A request for more discovery required a particularized account of the facts sought and why they would create a triable dispute.

“Triple S has not established what specific discovery it contemplates or what its expectations are as to what that discovery would show.”

Permissive abstention was unavailable without a pending parallel state-court action.

“The court declines to abstain from adjudicating Belair’s counter-claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1), as there is no pending state court action.”

Cautions

A default did not entitle the debtors to relief that the bankruptcy court lacked statutory authority to award directly.

“The Kangarloo’s motion for default judgment is denied for the following reasons.”

The trustee carried the burden of proving that claimed exemptions were improper.

“the objecting party has the burden of proving that the exemptions are not properly claimed.”

Stay relief followed where the property lacked equity and the proposed plan could not support an effective reorganization.

“the Subject Property is not necessary to an effective reorganization”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

AMS Realty, Inc. v. Tao (In re AMS Realty, Inc.)
· 1990-04-09
Motions to dismiss (defendant Tao) Granted

“The Court, having considered the contents of the moving and opposing papers, and the arguments of counsel, grants Defendant Tao’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.”

In re Oasis Petroleum Corp.
· 1991-06-17
Trustee objection to claim amendment (successor trustee) Granted

“The Trustee’s objection to the IRS’ amendment to Claim No. 220 in the amount of $281,764.36 is sustained. The asserted amendment is disallowed in full.”

California Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Moorpark Adventure (In re Moorpark Adventure)
· 1993-10-06
Motion for relief from automatic stay (California Federal Bank) Granted

“Cal Fed’s motion requesting relief from the automatic stay is granted as (1) the Subject Property has no equity and (2) the Subject Property is not necessary to an effective reorganization, as Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization is not confirmable.”

Request to approve disclosure statement (debtor) Denied

“Debtor’s request to approve its Disclosure Statement is denied for the same reason.”

Motion for reconsideration (debtor) Denied

“Debtor’s motion for reconsideration is denied”

In re Crosby
· 1993-11-01
Trustee objection to retirement plan exemption (Chapter 7 trustee) Denied

“The Trustee’s objection to Ms. Crosby’s claimed exemption of her interest in the Plan pursuant to C.C.P. § 704.115(a)(2) is overruled.”

Trustee objection to ira exemption (Chapter 7 trustee) Denied

“The Trustee’s objection to Ms. Crosby’s claimed exemption of her IRA Account, pursuant to C.C.P. § 704.115(a)(3), is overruled.”

Trustee objection to personal property exemption (Chapter 7 trustee) Denied

“The Trustee’s objection to Ms. Crosby’s claimed exemption of certain listed personal property pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 704.020 is overruled.”

Motion for turnover of exempt property (Chapter 7 trustee) Denied

“The Trustee’s request for the turnover of certain exempt property is denied.”

Dumas v. Research Testing Laboratories, Inc. (In re EPI Products USA, Inc.)
· 1993-12-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant Research Testing Laboratories) Granted

“Therefore, RTL’s motion to dismiss the Complaint is granted with prejudice.”

Lucero v. Montes (In re Montes)
· 1994-07-07
Nondischargeability claim section 523a2a (creditor Mary Lucero) Denied

“Mrs. Lucero has failed to carry her burden of proof under § 523(a)(2)(A).”

Nondischargeability claim section 523a4 (creditor Mary Lucero) Denied

“This court finds that Mrs. Lucero has not established ‘fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity’ by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Nondischargeability claim section 523a6 (creditor Mary Lucero) Denied

“This court finds that Mrs. Lucero has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Debtors’ conduct was willful and malicious.”

In re Pham
· 1994-12-07
Trustee objection to homestead exemption (Chapter 7 trustee) Denied

“The Trustee’s objections to the Debtors’ claimed homestead exemption under CCP §§ 704.730 and 704.920 are overruled.”

In re Sizzler Restaurants International, Inc.
· 1998-05-11
Summary judgment (debtor Sizzler) Granted

“Sizzler is entitled to summary judgment decreeing that Sizzler’s objection to Claim 1980 is sustained and that Claim No.1980 is disallowed in its entirety, Triple S to take nothing by this claim.”

Rule 56f request for continuance (claimant Triple S) Denied

“This court finds that Triple S has failed to make a sufficient showing for this court to continúe this motion to allow Triple S, pursuant to Rule 56(f), Fed. R.Civ.P., to engage in additional discovery.”

Kangarloo v. Arotionians (In re Kangarloo)
· 2000-06-23
Default judgment (debtors) Denied

“The Kangarloo’s motion for default judgment is denied for the following reasons.”

Sizzler USA Restaurants, Inc. v. Belair & Evans LLP (In re Sizzler Restaurants International, Inc.)
· 2001-03-13
Motion to approve voluntary dismissal without prejudice (counterclaimant Belair & Evans) Denied

“Belair’s motion to dismiss without prejudice is denied.”

Motion for permissive abstention (counterclaimant Belair & Evans) Denied

“The court declines to abstain from adjudicating Belair’s counter-claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1), as there is no pending state court action.”

Hoberg v. Hoberg (In re Hoberg)
· 2003-09-25
Nondischargeability claim support (former spouse) Granted

“the sum of $1,213,357.00, plus interest thereon of $346,547.85 to February 24, 2003, plus accrued interest thereafter in the daily amount of $488.63, constitutes a nondis-chargeable obligation due and owing from the Debtor, Grayson Hoberg, to the Plaintiff, Laura Hoberg, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).”

Nondischargeability claim property division (former spouse) Denied

“The balance of the unpaid Equalization Payment in the amount of $378,567.93, plus interest thereon of $107,919.60 as of February 24, 2003, plus accrued interest thereafter in the daily amount of $155.28, constitutes a discharged debt pursuant to § 523(a)(15)(A), § 523(a)(15)(B) and § 727(a).”

Nondischargeability claim attorneys fees (former spouse) Denied

“Attorneys fees awarded by the Los Angeles County Superior Court in the amount of $80,530.00 constitutes discharged debts pursuant to § 523(a)(15)(A), § 523(a)(15)(B) and § 727(a).”

Nondischargeability claim tax indemnity (former spouse) Denied

“constitutes a discharged obligation pursuant to § 523(a)(15)(A), § 523(a)(15)(B) and § 727(a).”

Nondischargeability claim section 523a2 (former spouse) Moot / procedural

“Accordingly, the court dismisses the Plaintiffs claim under § 523(a)(2) for failure to prosecute.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The five sampled bankruptcy matters were terminated, but their empty electronic timelines do not support a motion or duration analysis.

A historical record

Judge Greenwald no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.