Beverly Byrd v. James Hoffman, No. 08-1988 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1988 In Re: BEVERLY BYRD; RALPH T. BYRD, Debtors. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BEVERLY BYRD; RALPH T. BYRD, Plaintiffs Appellants, v. JAMES M. HOFFMAN, Defendant Appellee, and GREGORY P. JOHNSON, Trustee. No. 08-1989 In Re: BEVERLY BYRD; RALPH T. BYRD, Debtors. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BEVERLY BYRD; RALPH T. BYRD, Plaintiffs Appellants, v. JAMES M. HOFFMAN, Defendant Appellee, and GREGORY P. JOHNSON, Trustee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:07-cv-02960-AW; 8:07-cv-03049-AW) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph T. Byrd, Laytonsville, Maryland, for Appellants. Stephen A. Metz, John D. Sadler, SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER, P.A., Potomac, Maryland; James M. Hoffman, OFFIT KURMAN, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Beverly and Ralph Byrd appeal from the district court s orders affirming the bankruptcy court s orders finding them in contempt and imposing sanctions against them for (1) failing to timely to produce documents and information as ordered by the bankruptcy court and (2) willfully violating the automatic stay and the Barton Doctrine, * order issued by the bankruptcy court. and the injunction We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs filed by the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Byrd v. Hoffman, Nos. 8:07-cv-02960-AW; 8:07-cv-03049-AW (D. Md., July 31, 2008; filed July 30; entered July 31, 2008). facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126, 127 (1881) (requiring that, before suit is brought against a receiver, leave of the court by which he was appointed must be obtained ). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
