Parker v. U.S. Trustee Office Region 4-R, No. 3:2014cv00241 - Document 10 (E.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 09/26/14. (kyou, )(mailed to Pro se party)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Parker v. U.S. Trustee Office Region 4-R Doc. 10 IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT 8 COURT L EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA SEP 26 2QI4 Richmond Division CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND. VA IN RE DARRYL A. Civil Action No. PARKER 3:14cv241 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on pro se appellant Darryl Parker's Court appeal for from the Huennekens, an order B.J.)., the District Eastern of of pursuant to 28 reasons set forth below, United States Virginia U.S.C. § Bankruptcy (Phillips 158(a)(1). and For the the decision of the Bankruptcy Court is affirmed. PROCEDURAL AND This which the is an appeal FACTUAL BACKGROUND from a January 15, 2014 the Bankruptcy Court suspended Parker Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern joint order in from practicing in District of Virginia, ordered that Parker undergo legal education regarding bankruptcy law and ethics, the Eastern showing legal that and allowed Parker to apply for reinstatement to District he training had and of Virginia's completed that he his had Bankruptcy suspension satisfied Courts and upon additional previously-entered Dockets.Justia.com make-whole clients. A. orders Bankr. The Rec. required him to remit fees to certain to various 5-6. Individual Case Orders Throughout debtors, of that 2013, Parker, acting as counsel filed several bankruptcy cases in the Richmond Division the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (collectively called the "Five Cases").1 Upon motion of the United States Trustee, to whom the the Bankruptcy Judges cases were assigned2 issued orders to Parker to show cause why he should not receive both monetary sanctions and a suspension for his actions held and hearings See Dkt. Nos. Judge 2014 their in that Parker 1-17), No. had Case No. cases Cases. on The judges December Alonzo to late Tucker, Lisa Vaughan, 13-35495; in Smith Huennekens Chavis, and timely filings; Vanessa Sr., and Case No. file had D. R. 2013. January on documents; January Chavis, Huennekens. 15, to had falsely advise clients Smith, Case No. Bland 13-34220; 14, among other things, failed Joyce and Kenneth Staten, on Tucker, Danielle Case No. 13-31565; Case No. Rae Chavis, 13-35780. 2 Smith was assigned to the Honorable Keith L. Phillips. Vaughan, 10, issued a combined Staten These opinions held, 1 The cases at issue are: 13-31527; Five opinion Judge Tucker, failed for an while 1-11). debtors Alphanse in the respective issued Vaughan, (Dkt. to act 2, 3, and 4. No. 2014 blamed in Phillips (Dkt. opinion failures Tucker, and Staten were assigned to the Honorable Kevin regarding the make of (including obligations status the monthly with his had payments); clients; filed Several Parker additional document advise, with the detrimental Nos. 1-17, The R. court; various attend attend were P. Parker personal counseling several false made, 9011 had keep informed, and meetings including by and no value to - his clients, that - filing "failed to that: a false adequately and maintain the proper Parker's and and statements. and had violated the Virginia Conduct; to to to Bankr. that clients", Rule "unprofessional in some cases, subjecting them to actually peril." Dkt. 1-11. orders issued opinion in Vaughan, the Fed. of were and containing findings communicate with, services failed documents violated Professional obligation had legal demeanor with his of case had filed false compensation disclosures; several had their Bankruptcy in conjunction Tucker, Court had Chavis, found with the January 15, 2014 and Staten also recite that "Darryl A. Parker to be in contempt for violation of various Rules of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, for this Bankruptcy Court, standards of The sanction this Bankruptcy payable to of various Local Rules of and for failure to adhere to the minimum professional practicing before 14. violations conduct Court." Court the Dkt. then Chapter 3 required Nos. proceeded 13 of 1-16, to Trustee 1-15, impose in each attorneys 1-12, a 1- $1,000 case and required disgorgement of all fees in each case. issued on 2014 January 14, Smith contempt. States opinion Dkt. disgorgement B. No. Trustee's payment. 2014 for not 1-13. fees The order in conjunction with the January 15, does make an However, Motion Id. to paid it Examine in Smith explicit does grant Fees in finding Paid the United and addition of orders to another Id. The Miscellaneous Proceeding - In re Darryl A. Parker In addition to the individual proceedings in each of the Five Cases, Judges Phillips and Huennekens together issued a separate order in a Trustee's before miscellaneous request this continuing that Court and legal proceeding Parker that education ethics." That order was "be he directly suspended be required focusing on issued on January addressing from to practicing participate bankruptcy 15, the in and Bankr. 2014. law Rec. at 5 and granted the Trustee's request and suspended Parker from practicing in the Eastern District of Virginia for four months3 and ordered Parker to complete eight hours of legal education on bankruptcy law and four hours of legal education on legal ethics in bankruptcy law. Id. at Parker was permitted to before the Bankruptcy Court provided that he had made 6. The apply for after the order provided reinstatement his payments suspension ordered This suspension was to end on May 16, 2014. 4 also to practice period in the Bankr. Rec. that ended above- at 5 mentioned individual cases and had completed his legal training. Id. Parker filed a notice of appeal of the miscellaneous order.4 The notice states that it was sent by certified mail on January 28, 2014. However, it was received and entered by the clerk of the Bankruptcy Court on January 30, 2014. brief with this Court on May 15, 2014. Id. Dkt. Parker filed his No. 8. The Trustee filed his response brief with this Court on June 13, No. 9. Parker has not filed his reply to 2014. the Dkt. Trustee's response. DISCUSSION A. Jurisdiction of the Court 1. Time for Appeal As a threshold matter, is without the Trustee jurisdiction to consider argues the that appeal this because Court Parker failed to timely file his notice of appeal with the Bankruptcy Court. Appellee Brief, Dkt. No. 9, at 13. The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure require that an appellant file a "notice of appeal...with the clerk [of the Bankruptcy Court] within 14 days of the date appealed of the from." entry Fed. R. of the Bankr. judgment, Pro. order, 8002(a). or "It decree is well 4 The notice of appeal identified "the ORDER of the Bankruptcy Judge, entered on the Miscellaneous Proceeding Misc. 14-301, 15th Pro. No. Dkt. No. No. Day of 14-301 4. 5 January as the 2014" order and lists appealed. settled his that, notice if jurisdiction prospective appeal, of a the to hear Biotechnologies, Smith v. Dairymen, 484 Inc., ("[OJnly a party who District the Inc., appellant Court appeal." B.R. 790 (E.D. 1107, to is timely stripped Chien 659 F.2d fails v. Va. 1111 file of its Commonwealth 2012) (4th (citing Cir. 1986) files a notice of appeal properly invokes the appellate jurisdiction of the district court.")) In this case, the appeal was taken was Bankruptcy Court order entered on January 15, 2014. under the Rules, Parker had until January 29, Notice of with Notice of Appeal Bankr. Record Appeal was at from the Accordingly, 2014 to file his The stamped by the Clerk on January 30, 2014. Thus, the the the Bankruptcy Court. 9. Clerk of which Trustee maintains that Parker filed his notice of appeal outside of the time permitted by the Rules. Parker has not responded to this argument. "In most instances, %filed' when it filed." Chien, U.S. (1988)). 266 a notice of appeal is considered is received by the court with which it is to be 484 B.R. at However, 663 the (citing Houston United States v. Court Lack, 487 of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has adopted a different rule when dealing with appeals from This rule called 369, 371 of is (4th Cir. appeal is the Bankruptcy the 1976). "timely mailbox Court rule. to In the re District Pigge, Court. 539 F.2d The mailbox rule states that a notice filed" when 6 "the [appellant's] counsel placed the notice Fourth Circuit in has the mails." Id. never overruled In at re 371. Because the Pigge and the mailbox rule is not inconsistent with the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, it is controlling in this case. "Unfortunately, records the mail." Chien, responded date notice filed postmark on at Additionally, B.R. the jurisdiction to Bankruptcy the of 484 to the Trustee's alert in the mail. is dated However, the 28, retains that are the the Notice sent Parker asserting as to 2014. neither filings Brief this Court January considering that 663. Court nor by not lack a has of date he placed the of Appeal that to Parker It is reasonable assume, Bankruptcy Court in Richmond received and filed the notice on January 30, 2014, that the notice was mailed by Parker (who January 29, day resides 2014. in Richmond) on either January 28 or As both January 28 and 29 are within the 14- filing period, under the mailbox rule, Parker's filing was timely and therefore the Court has jurisdiction over the appeal from the Bankruptcy Court in In re Darryl A. Parker. 2. Jurisdiction Over "Make Whole" Orders in Individual Cases The considered order Trustee also timely, entered in this the argues Court that, only Miscellaneous has should filing be over the over the jurisdiction Proceeding orders entered in the individual proceedings. 7 the and not Appellee's Brief, Dkt. No. 9, at 18. The Trustee points out that notice of appeal stated that he was appealing "Mr. Parker's xthe ORDER of the Bankruptcy Judge, entered on the 15th Day of January, 2014'" and was filed solely in the miscellaneous proceeding entitled In re Darryl Id. A. Parker rather (citing Bankr. Rec. than at the 9) . As individual a result, bankruptcy cases. the Trustee argues that Parker "did not appeal the orders entered in the bankruptcy cases, make which had directed him to return money to the debtors and payments to the case attendant to his conduct 28 U.S.C. U.S.C. §§ 158 to in their cases." §158(c)(2) (a) and trustees provides that offset Id. at "an their expenses 19. appeal under [28 (b) ] shall be taken in the same manner as appeals in civil proceedings generally are taken to the courts of appeals from the Bankruptcy Court § 158(a), must district courts." to a District follow the Court, procedural Thus, an appeal of a authorized by 28 U.S.C. guidelines set forth for appeals from District Courts to Courts of Appeals.5 5 The Trustee argues that this rule weighs in favor of ignoring Fourth Circuit precedent in In re Pigge and instead applying the general rule of "filed when received" to the determination of the filing date in this case. As discussed above, that argument has been rejected. However, there is no Fourth Circuit precedent that conflicts with the general guidelines as laid out in the statute and Supreme Court precedent. Thus, the rules governing appeals from the District to the Circuit Courts will definitively apply to this issue. Fed. R. App. P. 3(a) directs that "an appeal permitted by law as of right from a district court to a court of appeals may be taken only by filing Fed. R. App. clerk." contents of the of] P. order, R. App. P. 3(c) (1) (B) . App. 3 are County, notice 3(c) 355 appeal with the district specifies the required this includes a "designat[ion or part thereof being appealed." "Generally, liberally Maryland, of further notice of appeal; the judgment, P. a the requirements of construed." Fed. Jones Appx. 724, v. 728 Fed. Prince (4th Fed. R. George's Cir. 2009) (holding that a notice of appeal which explicitly referenced one order but failed to designate another did not grant the court jurisdiction to hear the non-designated order)(citing Torres v. Oakland "this Scavenger principle compliance (1992). nature, with and the Rule." U.S. 312, construction Smith v. satisfaction is a (1988)). does Barry, "Rule 3's dictates of Notice the of Appeal However, not...excuse 502 U.S. non 244, 248 are jurisdictional in prerequisite Bankruptcy states Judge, that entered he on to appellate and number (MP No. 14-00301-KLP) mention of any of the Bankr. individual 9 of "appeals... from the 2014" and he lists only the case name proceeding on the Notice of Appeal. no 316 Id. ORDER Parker) liberal their Parker's January, 487 of Additionally, review." the Co., 15th (In re the Rec. at Day of Darryl A. miscellaneous 9. proceedings There is in Smith, Tucker, Chavis, Vaughan, the fact that an was also Notice and Staten. opinion in Tucker, issued on January 15, of Appeal), there Additionally, Chavis, 2014 is no (the other Vaughan, than and Staten date mentioned in the indication that Parker was attempting to appeal those orders in this case. While Rule manipulated the 3 is beyond contents of to be all the liberally recognition. individual construed, To case allow orders it cannot be Parker to appeal this proceeding in would be to ignore the directive that "liberal construction does not ...excuse compliance with the skirt the rules and precedent. Thus, this Court lacks rule" Jones, jurisdiction entered in Smith, Tucker, Vaughan, and allow 355 Fed. to to Appx. at 728. consider Chavis, Parker the orders and Staten and will only consider an appeal of the order entered in In re Darryl A. Parker, B. MP No. 14-00301-KLP. The Appeal This Court reviews the Bankruptcy Court's legal conclusions de novo. Factual also In findings Fed. imposing McGahren re R. Johnson, are Bankr. sanctions v. F.3d 1159, First 1169 960 F.2d 396,399 reviewed only for P. 8013. A is reviewed Citizens Bank (4th Cir. 1997). 10 & (4th clear error. Bankruptcy for Trust abuse Co. Cir. (In Id.; Court's of re 1992). see order discretion. Weiss), 111 Parker Brief, Dkt. raises No. 8, several at 2-3. issues in First, he his brief. Appellant's argues that the sanctions imposed by the Bankruptcy Court was "too severe and did not fit the alleged misconduct." Id. at 2. Second, he argues that the Bankruptcy Court's finding that its order of contempt was civil was incorrect. was criminal and jurisdiction evidence Id. to Id. that the enter it. was Finally, "discriminating, in conduct...and have at he thus presented contempt. Third, argues that Bankruptcy Id. to contempt Court Fourth, insufficient the he did argues support order not have the charge a that of Parker argues that his prosecution was that others have committed the same never been prosecuted. .. in this manner." Id. 3. 1. Abandoned Issues Parker raises section of his and Argument" brief two issues that section. are in not the "Assignments addressed Appellant's further Brief, of Error" in the Dkt. No. "Law 8. Assignment 4 states that "the evidence presented at the trial of this matter was totally insufficient for the Court's finding of Contempt." Additionally, Assignment 5 states that "the prosecution of [the] Appellant was discriminating in that others have committed the same conduct as [the] Appellant never been prosecuted by this Court in this manner." 11 and have Id. at 2- 3. Even though these assignments were of his brief, Fed. the beginning Parker does not otherwise address them. R. App. contain...the P. 28 states that the Appellant's brief "must argument, contentions and the authorities and parts relies." listed in Fed R. which reasons App. of P. must for the contain: them, with record on 28(a)(8)(A). citations which The appellant's the Fourth to the appellant Circuit held that "failure to comply with the specific dictates of has [Rule 28] with respect to the particular claim triggers abandonment of that claim on 241, 249 178 (4th Cir. F.3d 231, U.S.C. appeal." Suarez-Valenzuela 2013) n.6 241 v. Holder, 714 F.3d (quoting Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, (4th Cir. 1999)). §158(c)(2)'s directive and Fed. R. Thus, App. pursuant to P. 28 28 (a) (8) (A) 's requirements, the Court will not consider Parker's Assignments 4 and 5. 2. The Appealed Sanctions Parker orders alleges in constituted Bankruptcy Court Additionally, Court Appellant's Brief, appeal criminal lacked Parker Bankruptcy his the alleges No. the Bankruptcy contempt sanctions power impose that constituted Dkt. that 9, to the an at 2, those sanctions "abuse of Assignments The sanctions appealed include monetary sanctions, hours of legal education, and Court's that the sanctions. issued by the discretion." 1, 2, and 3. a required 12 and a suspension from legal practice 12 in front of Virginia. the Bankruptcy Id. at 3. a. In re for the Eastern District Each will be addressed in turn. Darryl that the A. four-month Parker, suspension order, "punishes...Appellant issued for past behavior" and thus constitutes a criminal contempt order, lies outside the power of the Bankruptcy Court. the reasons stated below, It Darryl Parker Id. at 4. whether the January 15, Bankruptcy Court 2014 was its whether civil it was contempt For authority under exercising its inherent 11 U.S.C power to in In re issuing suspension as a punishment upon a finding of contempt, to which this argument is rejected. is unclear from the order of A. of The Suspension Order Parker argues in Court the pursuant §105(a)6 or sanction. A federal court has an inherent power "to control admission to its bar and to discipline attorneys who appear before it." v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). Chambers This power to sanction has been recognized in the Fourth Circuit as with the Bankruptcy Court in addition to Article III courts. See McGahren (In re Weiss). 6 "The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No provision of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process." 13 The who Court's appear lawyers does before whose not underlying encompasses conduct impose "Attorney it warrants a criminal suspension investigation ability in is to to the ability such [sic] nor is civil the those to A it nor lawyers suspend treatment. sanction, ^neither sanction those suspension uniquely civil. criminal, of conduct but lawyer- the an respondent ... [and aims to] maintain the integrity of the courts and profession." the F.3d 1052, Price v. Lehtinen See 1059 (9th Cir. 2009). F.2d 347, 349-50 (7th Cir. 1970); Comm. On Prof'l Conduct, 542 Thus, it falls within the (In re Lehtinen), also In re Echeles, Richmond v. N.H. F.3d 913, court's 916 inherent 564 430 Supreme Court (1st Cir. sanction 2008). power and impose the should not be considered a criminal punishment. Because suspension, abused 211, have next discretion 216-17 (4t^h Cir. abused factual Bankruptcy Court the its erroneous its Parker's in is doing 2002) . finding." PBM Prods. (4th Cir. 2011). record so. In power the re to Bankruptcy Morrissey, Court 305 F.3d or "its rests LLC decision upon v. a Mead is guided clearly Johnson by erroneous & Co., 639 It is clear that the Bankruptcy its discretion here. before deficient the whether when principals 125 had A Bankruptcy Court can be said to discretion did not abuse The issue legal F.3d 111, Court the this performance Court is before 14 rife the with examples Bankruptcy Court of in the Five Cases. He submitted properly advise clients; he he and provided incompetent both the Bankruptcy The Bankruptcy suspension clearly order, not correct. as Because Parker operations To in services and of the the well under within its inherent suspend Parker's of four with bounds power such to of judicial sanction That the bankruptcy law order and was the proceedings. its Opinions, are they appear ineptitude clearly for such reasonableness, attorneys intended it, to it for a period ensure Court's the acting before to Bankruptcy Because a the Bankruptcy Court future standards suspension was within the Bankruptcy Court's power and was not an discretion, cases. supporting right to practice in front of months.7 compliance guiding the to hindered clients' Memorandum prolonged period of time in so many cases, was failed that his fact contrary, displayed he attend court proceedings; valueless findings stated erroneous. documents; failed to Court's Court's false order abuse of Parker's challenge to it is denied. b. Legal Education Requirement Parker additionally challenges the Bankruptcy Court's power to enter continuing an order legal compelling him education. Like to complete the 12 challenge hours of to the suspension order, this challenge is without merit. 7 Indeed, the period of the suspension was quite lenient when measured against the conduct that necessitated the suspension. 15 As before, it is education order was unclear continuing legal relation to the finding of imposed in whether the civil contempt in the individual cases or whether it was limited only to the Court's miscellaneous power to proceeding. compel an However, attorney the practicing Bankruptcy before it obtain further education is another manner of "maintain[ing] integrity of Lehtinen), the the 564 courts F.3d at and the 1059. profession." Therefore, inherent sanction power. Because, Price that power the scope of its power in issuing a the re is within as explained above, sanction power extends to the Bankruptcy Court, outside (In to the it did not act compelled legal education order. An abuse well. in of discretion standard applies to this review The Bankruptcy Court clearly did not abuse its discretion ordering Parker to attend 12 hours education on bankruptcy law and ethics. clear that he was either unaware of, of continuing legal Parker's conduct makes or unconcerned rules that govern practice in the Bankruptcy Court. with, that entirely Parker reasonable must Bankruptcy Court be for the further Bankruptcy educated and the ethical obligations before resuming practice in that Court. entrusted with his clients' financial 16 in Court the of the Because his actions and failures to act occurred in the Bankruptcy Court, was as to rules the it conclude of the profession Requiring an attorney, futures, to understand and follow the law essential. was and Thus, within the court rules because the is not only legal continuing Bankruptcy Court's power reasonable, education and did not but order constitute an abuse of discretion, Parker's challenge is denied.8 C. Disgorgement of Client Fees Next, Parker challenges the monetary the Bankruptcy Court in the Five Cases. not appealed, Parker's his each the reinstatement compliance of order the monetary "with Five monetary to In of the and in miscellaneous in each A. the monetary of imposed conditions Bankruptcy of Five proceeding's Court on ordered sanctions "proof the Parker in payment Cases" the Hence, 6. his the Rec. at have been integrated to of in Bankr. appear by While those cases were Darryl required application. sanctions re practice all Cases" sanctions reinstatement in sanctions order and will thus be monetary sanction into imposed on the addressed by the Court for good measure. The the first Five [debtor] type Cases all attorney's was fees fees. of an order paid See in [the] Smith Order, Dkt. No. 12; Staten Order, 15; Vaughan Order, Dkt. 8 Like the suspension lenient in need that No. Dkt 16. period, of case", No. the education. for perspective Dkt. Parker's 17 Parker 14; "disgorge including No. Parker 1-13; Tucker in to the filing and Chavis Dkt. No. upon the education requirement was conduct the This is Order, Order, based demonstrating Bankruptcy Court's to his clients. No 1-17; 14; determination Dkt. Tucker Order, Dkt. Bankruptcy Courts states value with that of "if payment." paid § 329(b) the abuse under the estate or §329(b). the The attorney's Thus, the the entity to §329 reasonable may that in the cancel and fall made the such Five Cases were filing orders to clients Parker's fees §329. any...payment, opinions payments debtor's court the 1- oversee exceeds of No. 1-16. U.S.C the return of 11 Dkt. Dkt. Dkt. No. to compensation services, cases. its from provided no previous two discretion his clients value disrespect for, negatively affected resulting in benefit. Thus, the attorneys value fees already squarely under and are within the Bankruptcy Court's power. the received power no Page 16-17, Staten Order, the the that orders 1-12; order to state Like not or U.S.C in have their 11 disgorgement provided 1-15; Vaughan Order, [attorney] excessive clearly No. No. [attorney] any... agreement, extent Parker See Smith Memorandum Opinion, Chavis Order, transactions that to the Parker in the Cases. Five clients. and His Court's clients' because the Court's Bankruptcy Court ordering Bankruptcy his the in his dismissals, Bankruptcy sanctions, orders power 18 Parker's rules led § and in some to more to disgorge under disgorge ignorance cases, certainly to 329(b) money services of, and the law instances harm fees was and did than within did not constitute an abuse of discretion, Parker's challenge to the disgorgement provision is denied. D. Reimbursement Sanction to Trustee The to final reimbursement sanction order required him to imposed which in Parker four pay the Chapter objects of the Five 13 Trustee is the Cases9 which $1,000 in each case "as reimbursement for expenses incurred by the trustee attending to Parker's Staten transgressions." Order, Vaughan Chavis Dkt. No. Dkt. No. 1-12; Tucker 1-14; Dkt. Order, No. Order, Order, Dkt. No. 1-15; that this is 1-16. Parker argues a criminal contempt punishment and lies outside of the Bankruptcy Court's power. Like the above monetary granting this reimbursement were However, their incorporation into the not sanction, appealed order in the this in In orders case. re Darryl A. Parker weighs in favor of addressing their validity. Parker argues that the monetary sanctions were fines. are, however, sanction reimbursement power Bankruptcy of Court the has orders Bankruptcy inherent and Court. authority thus fall under the stated As to They above, the sanction attorneys appearing before it for their failure to properly operate within the bounds of reimbursement the sanction law. meant The to monetary make the sanction other parties was to a the 9 This sanction was issued by Judge Huennekens in Chavis, Tucker, Vaughan, sanction and in Staten. Judge Phillips Smith. 19 did not incorporate this proceeding punish. the whole and not The Chapter government considerable criminal 13 Trustee agency time a which and contempt in each employs effort into of the the order the to Five Cases Trustee Five meant and had invested and Parker's Cases, transgressions resulted in that time and effort being wasted. The Bankruptcy discipline requiring who those Court's attorneys sanction who appear deficiently-performing were negatively affected power, by before attorneys their Pipeline Serv. Co. the inherent assess attorneys' grounds); Cir. fees) to it to extends it, to reimburse wrongdoing. v. Wilderness Soc'y, (stating that allowing 421 U.S. See 240, those Alyeska 258 (1975) sanction power permitted a court (superseded Knupfer v. Lindblade by statute (In re Dyer), 322 on to other F.3d 1178 (9th 2003) (upholding a bankruptcy court's award of the Trustee's legal fees); (court's Oliveri v. Thompson, exercise exception to the of its rule litigation); 2260, (Bankr. at 12 "includes the attorneys' Association, D. 185 and B.R. In re to F.2d 1265 sanction parties assess 475 (2nd Cir. power their 1986) creates own fees 2003 Bankr. an and LEXIS (The inherent sanction power sanctions costs..."); 460, bear Couch-Ruzzell, Idaho 2003) ability fees inherent that expenses of 803 In (Bankr. re in 72nd S.D.N.Y. the St. 1995) form of Realty ("A court is empowered to assess costs and fees against an attorney and/or his client where a party acts 20 in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons"). Thus, the Bankruptcy Court properly exercised its power in imposing this sanction. The reimbursement discretion. order Parker's did actions not and constitute failures to an act abuse of resulted in wasted time and effort by the Chapter 13 Trustee in each of the four cases in which the reimbursement sanction was imposed. It was not erroneous for the Bankruptcy Court to find that Parker's misdeeds course cost of court the to Trustee cases, nor believe corresponded because the with the a would that the substantial a extent the Court order its under have been of loss had sanction was not an abuse of discretion, over order Parker the time the for the erroneous reimbursement Bankruptcy reimbursement it amount caused. power power, properly Thus, to and issue a its doing so Parker's challenge is denied. CONCLUSION For the foregoing sanctions imposed Parker's arguments to the issue Parker had effectively times. system against been in or given the the warranted the Court were 21 his the propriety and had of authority has merit. to perform failed multiple clients sanctions four None Court's opportunities Court appropriate that appropriate. sanctions' harmed finds Bankruptcy several Bankruptcy failures the Parker respecting sanctions Parker's and reasons, that and are the court aimed to ensure future compliance with court rules, ethics laws, and statutory mandates and that emphasized to Parker the severity of what he had done and failed to do. The order of the Bankruptcy Court will be affirmed. It is so ORDERED. /s/ Robert E. Payne BL Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: September "&£, 2014 22
]]>
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.
