Susan Pierson Sonderby

How Judge Sonderby rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Position
bankruptcy
Status
Retired 2012
Served
1986–2012
Commissioned
1986-01-01
Signed orders read
20

How Judge Sonderby decides

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

What persuades

A postpetition administrative claim required proof of an actual estate benefit; unused services and references to invoices did not create priority.

“Merely referencing invoices is not sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the issue of benefit to the Kmart estate.”

A creditor seeking late plan relief had to act with diligence; nearly two years of inattention to its own tax advances did not justify undoing a substantially executed confirmation order.

“If a residence mortgagee such as GMAC were allowed to slumber throughout the plan term and then awaken to overturn a largely executed plan as ‘improperly confirmed’ merely because of its unexcused failure to file a proper claim or objection to confirmation, the ‘bankruptcy principle of repose’”

Procedural preferences

Joint-defense privilege could not be waived unilaterally for use against former allies, because doing so would undermine the privilege's purpose and discourage joint defenses.

“the joint defense privilege would be stripped of its purpose and effectiveness if one party could unilaterally waive the privilege in favor of a third party”

Equitable authority did not permit extending a Chapter 7 claim deadline where the bankruptcy rules expressly prohibited the requested extension.

“this Court will not use its equitable powers to do what is otherwise prohibited.”

Cautions

Conclusory affidavits carried little weight at summary judgment even though a court could not reject evidence merely because it was self-serving.

“affidavits that contain only conclusory assertions of ultimate fact are entitled to little weight on a motion for summary judgment.”

Signed rulings

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

E.F. Wonderlic & Associates v. Parma, Inc. (In re Tandem Enterprises, Ltd.)
· 1991-02-04
Summary judgment (E.F. Wonderlic & Associates) Moot / procedural

“It is clear from the language of Bankruptcy Rule 9027 that the Plaintiff has failed to timely remove this cause. Furthermore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter. Therefore, the Court remands this action to state court for further disposition.”

In re Nelson
· 1991-12-27
Motion for hardship discharge (the debtors) Denied

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Debtors’ Motion for a Hardship Discharge and Request to Strike the Trustee’s Response are denied.”

Motion to strike trustee response (the debtors) Denied
In re Global Precious Metals, Inc.
· 1992-07-27
Motion to extend time to file proofs of claim (the Chapter 7 trustee) Denied

“Accordingly the Trustee’s Motions to Extend the Time for Filing Proofs of Claim are denied.”

Carmel v. River Bank America (In re FBN Food Services, Inc.)
· 1993-08-20
Motion to enjoin state court proceedings (the Chapter 7 trustee) Denied

“The Court denies the Trustee’s motion to enjoin Quest from prosecuting its state court proceedings.”

Motion for contempt and sanctions (the Chapter 7 trustee) Denied

“The Court further denies the Trustee’s motion for a finding of contempt and sanctions.”

In re Jones
· 1994-04-22
Motion to avoid lien (the debtors) Denied

“The Court finds the Debtors are not entitled to the avoidance of the judicial hen of Pinnacle Bank/Harvey for the reasons stated above. Therefore, their motion seeking such rehef is denied.”

In re Ransom
· 1995-08-25
Motion to convert or dismiss chapter 11 case (the Internal Revenue Service) Denied

“Consequently, the Court’s denial of the Motion to Convert or Dismiss is contingent on the Debtor paying his estimated payment for the first quarter of 1995 to the IRS within 24 hours of the docketing of this order.”

Fogel v. Zell (In re Madison Management Group, Inc.)
· 1997-06-25
Motion to lift protective orders (the Chapter 7 trustee) Denied

“For the reasons stated above, the Trustee’s motion to lift the protective orders as to documents withheld by Samuel Zell, The Estate of Robert Lurie, Great American Management and Investment, Inc. and Great American Financial Group, Inc. f/k/a Great American Industrial Group, Inc. on the basis of privilege is denied”

In re Anicom, Inc.
· 2002-02-22
Application to retain professional nunc pro tunc (the debtors) Denied

“will each be denied, and the Retainer ordered immediately returned to Debtors.”

Application for compensation (Fort Dearborn Partners, Inc.) Denied
In re Kmart Corp.
· 2002-09-25
Motion to compel performance of lease obligations (San Diego Mart Associates) Granted

“Accordingly, the Court grants the motions of San Diego Mart, Moulton and WIENM compelling Kmart to perform the postpetition obligations”

Motion to compel performance of lease obligations (Moulton Properties, Inc.) Granted
Motion to compel performance of lease obligations (WIENM Properties) Granted
In re Kmart Corp.
· 2003-01-23
Motion to compel assumption or rejection of executory contract (CIT Financial USA, Inc.) Denied

“For the reasons stated herein, the Court denies the motion of CIT Financial USA, Inc. for the entry of an order pursuant to section 365(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code compelling Kmart Corporation to assume or reject a certain license agreement and for an administrative claim pursuant to section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.”

Motion for allowance of administrative claim (CIT Financial USA, Inc.) Denied
In re Kmart Corp.
· 2003-05-28
Summary judgment (JDA Software, Inc.) Denied

“the court denies the motion of JDA Software, Inc. for summary judgment”

Summary judgment (Kmart Corporation) Granted

“grants the motion of Kmart Corporation for entry of summary judgment.”

Motion for allowance of administrative claim (JDA Software, Inc.) Denied

“The motion of JDA Software, Inc. for allowance of administrative claim is denied”

Objection to administrative claim (Kmart Corporation) Granted

“the objection of Kmart Corporation thereto is sustained.”

Kmart Corp. v. Uniden America Corp. (In re Kmart Corp.)
· 2004-07-07
Motion to strike affirmative defenses (Kmart Corporation) Granted

“For the reasons stated, the motion to strike the Uniden defenses is granted. The third, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth and eleventh defenses are stricken.”

Judgment on the pleadings (Kmart Corporation) Denied

“Kmart’s alternative request for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) is denied.”

A historical record

Judge Sonderby 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.