David E. Russell

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

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

Court
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California
Position
bankruptcy
Status
Deceased
Appointed by
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Education
University of California, Berkeley; University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), J.D., 1960
Signed orders read
14

How Judge Russell decides

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

What persuades

A documented mailing practice, corroborating records, diligence, and lack of prejudice supported treating a claim as timely received.

“The Debtor failed to refute the inference of receipt.”

Procedural preferences

A default judgment did not establish nondischargeability where the relevant issues had not actually been litigated.

“The doctrine of issue preclusion does not apply to a United States District Court default judgment when the parties have failed to actually litigate the issues sought to be precluded.”

Cautions

Excessive discretionary spending prevented confirmation when the plan did not commit all projected disposable income.

“The excessive amounts claimed for some of their acceptable expenses and the large amount they spend each month on discretionary items convince this court that the Debtors’ plan fails the disposable income test.”

Signed rulings

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

Ellett v. Goldberg (In re Ellett)
· 1999-01-11
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Gerald Goldberg) Denied

“For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”

In re Bagne
· 1998-03-27
Objection to plan confirmation (Beneficial California, Inc.) Granted

“As presently drafted, the Debtor’s chapter 13 plan cannot be confirmed. However, the denial of plan confirmation is without prejudice.”

In re Andrade
· 1997-10-10
Objection to plan confirmation (Chapter 13 trustee) Granted

“For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny confirmation of the plan as proposed but allow Debtors to submit an amended plan.”

In re Pyle
· 1996-10-10
Objection to claim (debtor) Denied

“Consequently, the court will allow the claim as timely filed.”

Marlee Electronics Corp. v. Antonakis (In re Antonakis)
· 1997-03-27
Summary judgment (Marlee Electronics Corporation) Denied

“The court will therefore deny Marlee’s motion for summary judgment.”

Kaufman v. Tallant (In re Tallant)
· 1997-04-15
Nondischargeability claim section 523 a 4 (Curtis Kaufman) Denied

“Consequently, § 523(a)(4) creates no bar to the discharge of the debt Tallant owes Kaufman on the loan.”

Nondischargeability claim section 523 a 2 a (Curtis Kaufman) Granted

“amounts to fraudulent nondisclosure, and a debt so incurred is nondischargeable by virtue of § 523(a)(2)(A).”

Nondischargeability claim section 523 a 2 b (Curtis Kaufman) Granted

“This half-truth amounted to a fraudulent misrepresentation and Kaufman sustained his burden of proof on each element of the § 523(a)(2)(B) claim.”

Paragon Development Enterprises, Inc. v. Redding Bank of Commerce (In re Paragon Development Enterprises, Inc.)
· 1996-09-30
Summary judgment (Redding Bank of Commerce) Granted

“For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant the motion for summary judgment in favor of Redding.”

In re Murray
· 1996-02-08
Motion for retroactive relief from stay (Internal Revenue Service) Denied

“Therefore, the court will deny the Service’s motion for retroactive relief from the automatic stay.”

In re Carlson
· 1995-01-09
Objection to claim (debtor) Denied

“Therefore, Debtor’s objection to the Service’s secured status is without merit and must be overruled.”

In re Price
· 1995-03-14
Motion to enforce automatic stay and return funds (debtors) Granted in part

“For reasons set forth below, the court grants in part and denies in part Debtors’ motion.”

Bernstein v. Pavich (In re Pavich)
· 1996-01-02
Summary judgment (John Pavich) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions for summary judgment of Debtor and Defendant John Pavich, Plaintiffs Leslie and Elaine Bernstein, and Defendant Internal Revenue Service are GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (Leslie and Elaine Bernstein) Granted
Summary judgment (Internal Revenue Service) Granted
In re Spencer
· 1995-05-16
Summary judgment (debtor) Granted

“Therefore, the court must grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Completed-case duration is reported for 7 terminated matters in the fixed sample.

A historical record

Judge Russell 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.