James N. Barr

How Judge Barr rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Barr 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
Appointed by
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Signed orders read
14

How Judge Barr decides

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

Procedural preferences

A party seeking a nondischargeability ruling needed creditor status and a right to payment.

“Absent creditor status, the SEC lacks standing to pursue an action under that section of the Bankruptcy Code.”

Cautions

Filing a bankruptcy petition to delay related litigation and protect an insider supported an improper-purpose sanctions finding.

“Here, the history of litigation between the parties and the testimony of DiLullo and Davis create a strong inference that the petition was filed for an improper purpose — i.e., to delay the Los Angeles Action and to limit DiLullo’s liability for legal fees and costs associated with that litigation.”

Signed rulings

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

Ehrenberg v. WSCR, Inc. (In re Hoover WSCR Associates Ltd.)
· 2001-08-06
Summary judgment (WSCR, Inc.) Granted

“Based on the above, I will grant WSCR’s motion for summary judgment and deny the trustee’s motion for summary judgment because there are no genuine issues of material fact and WSCR is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Summary judgment (the Chapter 7 trustee) Denied
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Cross (In re Cross)
· 1996-12-11
Nondischargeability claim (Securities and Exchange Commission) Moot / procedural

“The SEC has no right to payment from Cross and is, therefore, not a ‘creditor’ for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A). Absent creditor status, the SEC lacks standing to pursue an action under that section of the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, I will dismiss the SEC’s complaint.”

In re Start the Engines, Inc.
· 1998-04-07
Request for rule 9011 sanctions (Michael Klein) Granted

“Klein will be awarded sanctions in the amount of $10,000.00 for the violation of Rule 9011(b)(1) to be paid by DiLullo and Davis, jointly and severally.”

Request for section 1927 sanctions (Michael Klein) Denied

“No sanctions will be awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 because bankruptcy courts lack authority to award sanctions under that statute.”

In re Brown
· 1989-12-27
Chapter 13 plan confirmation (the debtor) Granted

“Finding that all required elements have been met, I shall confirm the plan as proposed.”

Marshack v. Sauer (In re Palmer)
· 1992-04-24
Summary judgment (the Chapter 7 trustee) Denied

“Based thereon, I will deny the Trustee’s motion for summary judgment and, sua sponte, grant summary judgment to the Sauers.”

Summary judgment (Fred and Marcia Plahm-Sauer) Granted
Marshack v. Mesa Valley Farms L.P. (In re Ridge II)
· 1993-09-17
Summary judgment (the limited partners other than WWFM and Wenz) Granted

“Therefore, all the Limited Partners except WWFM and Wenz are entitled to judgment on the complaint as to all causes of action.”

Summary judgment (Walters) Denied

“Therefore, I will deny Walters’ summary judgment motion, and leave such questions, and their progeny, for trial or a later motion.”

In re Prospero
· 1989-11-29
Motion for reconsideration (Albert and Jill Prospero) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Debtors’ motion for reconsideration of my order of June 27, 1989 is granted, however, having reconsidered said order,”

Tidrick v. General Bank (In re Tidrick)
· 1989-09-19
Claim to extinguish deed of trust (Lee and Theresa Tidrick) Denied

“For all of the foregoing reasons, I have concluded that neither the defendant’s deed of trust nor its rights thereunder has been extinguished by application of C.C.P. § 726.”

In re Smith
· 1991-02-11
Chapter 11 plan confirmation (Geraldine Becker Smith) Denied

“I will deny the Debtor confirmation of her plan of reorganization because the plan fails to comply with the provisions of 11 U.S.C. §§ 1123(a)(4) and 1129(b)(2); and an order will issue accordingly.”

Antablian v. State Board of Equalization of California (In re Antablian)
· 1992-05-27
Claim to bar second tax determination (Varish Antablian) Denied

“Because there was no hearing conducted in conjunction with the initial determination of the Debtor’s tax liability for the period July 31, 1983 to March 31, 1986, and, similarly, because the requisites for the application of res judicata to that determination were not met, a second determination of liability by The Board for the same period is not precluded, notwithstanding the fact that the first determination became ‘final’ before the second was made.”

In re Laguna Hills Financial Associates
· 1988-11-18
Application for retroactive employment (Grubb & Ellis Company) Granted

“Therefore, in accordance with the findings and conclusions expressed herein, I will approve the employment of GRUBB & ELLIS by the Debtor in possession in this case retroactive to November 3, 1987, the date escrow instructions for the sale of the subject property were signed.”

Houghton v. First American Capital Bank (In re Houghton)
· 1991-02-12
Motion for temporary restraining order (the debtors) Granted

“An order will issue in accordance with this opinion temporarily restraining the Bank from evicting the Debtors from the subject property.”

Motion for relief from prior orders (the debtors) Denied

“As to the Debtors’ motion for relief from the effect of my prior orders, I deny that motion for want of sufficient Points and Authorities exploring its relevant issues.”

A historical record

Judge Barr 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.