Peter M. Elliott
How Judge Elliott rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Elliott no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Elliott decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A large equity cushion and continued payments supported limited use of collateral needed for operations.
“it borders on the frivolous for the SBA to argue that it is not adequately protected when the liquidation value of the collateral is 7.3 times the amount of the secured indebtedness.”
Procedural preferences
Removal deadlines were treated as mandatory and beyond alteration by party agreement.
“The statutory period of time within which cases may be removed from state to federal courts is mandatory and not subject to agreement between parties”
Cautions
Repeated skeletal filings without schedules or plans supported sanctions when used to block foreclosure.
“The pattern of filings and the failure to file schedules demonstrates that the debtor did not in fact intend to file a plan but interposed the Chapter 11 petitions to impose delay, to wit, to block Pasadena’s foreclosure proceedings.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The report of the trustee showing time spent and the nature and extent of his services justifies an award of $5,778.82.”
The judge recommended remand of a tangential state-law dispute, but the record reviewed here did not establish adoption by the district court.
The court corrected its own adjudication date and directed entry of a separate order for relief under the new bankruptcy law.
“ORDERED that the plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed on the merits.”
“In conclusion, as adequate protection, the bank is entitled to $165,416 in profits and $95,834 in depreciation commencing immediately and, commencing four weeks from the date of an order entered on this memorandum, $268,324 plus the depreciation of $95,834 per month.”
The court dismissed a Chapter 11 case filed solely to frustrate foreclosure and treated the stay-relief complaint as moot.
The court held that debtor attendance at the discharge hearing was directory and ordered entry of discharge despite nonappearance.
The court remanded an untimely and improvidently removed state action instead of setting it for trial.
“I conclude that the debt- or may use pre-filing accounts receivable until further order of the court, on condition that the debtor make the regular monthly payment of approximately $2,200 per month.”
“Therefore, the automatic stay of § 362 should be terminated forthwith.”
“the debtors are not entitled to an order avoiding Geico’s lien on their residence to the extent that Geico’s claim exceeds Geico’s secured claim.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the stipulation requesting an order for relief from stay is denied.”
A historical record
Judge Elliott 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.