MOTION TO CONVERT TO CHAPTER 7
THIS MOTION SEEKS AND ORDER THAT MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT YOU. IF YOU OPPOSE THE MOTION, YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY CONTACT THE MOVING PARTY TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE. IF YOU AND THE MOVING PARTY CANNOT AGREE, YOU MUST FILE A RESPONSE AND SEND A COPY TO THE MOVING PARTY. YOU MUST FILE AND SERVE YOUR RESPONSE WITHIN 21 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS WAS SERVED ON YOU.
YOUR RESPONSE MUST STATE WHY THE MOTION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED.
IF YOU DO NOT FILE A TIMELY RESPONSE, THE RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.
IF YOU OPPOSE THE MOTION AND HAVE NOT REACHED AN AGREEMENT, YOU MUST ATTEND THE HEARING. UNLESS THE PARTIES AGREE OTHERWISE, THE COURT MAY CONSIDER EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING AND MAY DECIDE THE MOTION AT THE HEARING.
There will be a hearing on this Motion on February 15, 2022, at 9:00 am at the U.S. Courthouse, 515 Rusk, Courtroom # 400, Houston, Texas.
You may attend virtually or in person. To attend virtually, you must connect by separate audio and video connections. The audio connection is 832.917.1510.
The Code is 205691. The video connection is at gotomeeting.com. The Code is JudgeJones.
TO THE HONORABLE U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:
COMES NOW Eddie M. Krenek, Tricia Krenek, David Melanson, and Denise Robbins (collectively, “Movants”) requesting that this case be converted for cause pursuant to 11 U.S.C.§ 1307(c), and would respectfully show the Court as follows:
1. Debtor is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Texas. He has been repeatedly sanctioned by multiple courts.
He has been designated a vexatious pro se litigant by the Fort Bend County District Court.
He is the subject a pending disciplinary action by the State Bar of Texas’ Commission for Lawyer Discipline.
He filed this Chapter 13 bankruptcy on the eve of foreclosure on the single piece of real property he disclosed in his Schedules.
2. Debtor’s actions before and after the Petition Date reflect his bad faith in filing this bankruptcy case. Among other things, Debtor filed the Petition to frustrate state-court litigation and pending creditor actions in a continued attempt to hinder, defraud, and delay creditors;
he failed to disclose numerous assets and details about his financial affairs;
he shipped assets overseas;
filed a proposed plan remarkable for its deficiencies;
and he does not meet the eligibility requirements for Chapter 13.
Debtor’s bad faith warrants converting this case to one under Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States Code.
A Chapter 7 trustee is desperately needed to investigate the Debtor’s financial condition, uncover the extent of his misrepresentations, assets, and transfers, and to gather the Debtor’s assets and conduct an orderly liquidation of the Debtor’s estate.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. The Court has jurisdiction over this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334(b). This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. The statutory bases for the relief requested are 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a), 109(e), and 1307(c).
4. Movants hold final judgments and sanction orders against Debtor totaling $221,676.
True and correct copies of these judgments and orders (along with supporting documents) are attached hereto as Exhibits 1-4.
These judgments and orders were entered in two lawsuits that Debtor pursued against Movants that were dismissed as meritless under Texas’ Anti-SLAPP laws.
In one of the proceedings, the trial court made findings of fact that include the finding that Diogu “to not be credible or reliable in his legal or factual assertions, with such arguments and assertion of legal authorities to lack credibility and reliability.”
See Exhibit 4 (highlighted finding #37. Debtor’s attempts to appeal these judgments and orders were rejected. See Exhibit 4-A. They are final and unappealable.
5. Debtor is a licensed Texas attorney. On May 27, 2021, after two days of evidentiary hearings and testimony, he was found to be a vexatious pro se litigant by the 434th Judicial District Court in Fort Bend County, Texas (Associate Judge).
See Exhibit 5. Upon Debtor’s appeal of this finding to the District Judge of the 434th Judicial District Court, the District Judge conducted a de novo hearing after which Debtor was again found and confirmed to be a vexatious pro se litigant.
See Exhibit 5-A.
Debtor is currently the respondent in a disciplinary lawsuit filed by the State Bar of Texas’ Commission for Lawyer Discipline in Fort Bend County alleging that Debtor
(1) made a false declaration under penalty of perjury in a pro se lawsuit when he denied owning any real estate;
(2) filed a frivolous motion to disqualify judges;
(3) forged his client’s signature on a contingent fee agreement.
See Exhibit 6 at 2-6.
6. On November 2, 2021 (the “Petition Date”), Debtor initiated this bankruptcy case by filing a pro se Chapter 13 petition.
7. On November 10, 2021, Debtor filed his Statement of Financial Affairs [Dkt. No.10]. That document was strikingly lacking in pertinent information.
8. Also on November 10, 2021, Debtor filed his statement of current monthly income and calculation of commitment period [Dkt. No. 11] (the “Statement of Income”).
The Statement of Income claimed that Debtor’s total average monthly income for the six months leading up to the Petition Date was $4,275.00, consisting of $1,390.00 in pension or retirement income and $2,885.00 in net monthly income from a business or profession.
9. On November 12, 2021, Debtor filed a proposed Chapter 13 plan [Dkt. No. 16].
10. Also on November 12, 2021, Debtor filed a series of amendments to his Schedules [Dkt. Nos. 17 and 18, 21], an amended Chapter 13 plan [Dkt. No. 19], and an amended Statement of Current Monthly Income [Dkt. No. 20].
11. On November 14, 2021, Debtor filed an amended Chapter 13 plan [Dkt. No. 22].
12. On November 17, 2021, creditor Lakeland West Capital 41, LLC (“Lakeland West”) filed its motion requesting relief from the automatic stay [Dkt. No. 28] (the “Lift Stay Motion”).
As described in the Lift Stay Motion, Debtor has been involved in a series of unsuccessful lawsuits in state and federal courts attempting to hinder Lakeland West from foreclosing on real property belonging to Debtor.
As described in the Lift Stay Motion, Debtor had failed to disclose in this bankruptcy case four automobiles, at least eight pieces of real property, and his membership interest in an LLC formed on September 22, 2021.
Exhibits J, K, L, and U to the Lift Stay Motion are incorporated herein by reference.
13. On November 14, 2021, Debtor filed his Uniform Plan and Motion for Valuation of Collateral [Dkt. No. 22] (“Debtor’s Proposed Plan”).
So far as Movants can discern, Debtor’s Proposed Plan attempts to address one mortgage and an IRS claim but includes no details relating to any other secured creditors, priority creditors, and/or non-priority creditors.
Moreover, it provides a value for the mortgage that is only approximately half of the value that the mortgage holder places on its claim.
14. On November 30, 2021, Fort Bend County filed an objection [Dkt. No. 35] (the “Objection”) to Debtor’s Proposed Plan.
The Objection notes that Debtor owes Fort Bend County $316,316.64 for ad valorem property taxes and that Fort Bend County views its claim as being secured.
Assuming their truth, the allegations of the Objection in and of themselves make Debtor’s Proposed Plan unconfirmable. Debtor’s utter failure to provide for Fort Bend County’s claim underscores his bad faith intentions in filing this bankruptcy case.
15. On December 10, 2021, the Debtor filed his amended response (the “Amended Response”) to the Lift Stay Motion. Among other things, Debtor took the unusual and facially suspect positions that Lakeland West is not a secured creditor and lacks standing.
The Amended Response accurately reflects the vexatious pro se litigation tactics that Debtor consistently employs and for which he was previously found to have engaged in frivolous filings and for which he was declared a vexatious pro se litigant.
16. On December 17, 2021, Debtor filed amendments to his Schedules A and B [Dkt. No. 51]. In those amendments, Debtor included the vehicles that he had previously failed to disclose that the Lift Stay Motion had identified.
The exhibits suggest that Debtor shipped several of those vehicles overseas, including a Porsche and a Hummer, and Debtor claims they were therefore outside this Court’s jurisdiction.
(At his subsequent 341 meeting, Debtor testified that he paid $6,000.00 to ship these vehicles to Africa.)
While Debtor attempts to suggest that the vehicles he shipped to Africa were not driveable and of no value, Texas Department of Motor Vehicle records reflect that Debtor had title registrations renewed in July of 2021 (for 2005 Hummer and 2005 Mercedes Benz) and on October 20, 2021 (for the 2003 Hummer), days before Debtor’s bankruptcy filing. See Exhibit 7.
Inoperable vehicles would not pass inspection, a requirement for vehicle registrations to be renewed.
17. Debtor subsequently retained counsel.
On January 14, 2022, less than two hours before his 341 meeting, Debtor filed amendments to his Schedules and SOFA [Dkt. No. 61] (the “Current Version of Schedules and SOFA”).
The Current Version of Schedules and SOFA values the Fort Bend County secured claim at $14,085.22 and lists the following unsecured debts:
Creditor Nature of Debt Amount
• CACH, LLC credit card $9,414.36
• Educational Credit Mgt. Student Loan $191,817.82
• Fulshear Katy Road Series “new trial pending” $13,250.00
• Internal Revenue Service 1040 taxes $39,000.00
• P. Yao Judgment $63,000.00
• Tricia and Ed Krenek, Melanson and Robbins Judgment $221,676.00
18. A cursory review of these debts shows that Debtor has noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts exceeding the statutory cap of $419,275.00. See 11 U.S.C. § 109(e).
19. Concurrently with the filing of the Current Schedules and SOFA, Debtor filed an amended proposed chapter 13 plan [Dkt. No. 62] (the “Current Proposed Chapter 13 Plan”).
Among other things, the Current Proposed Chapter 13 Plan appears to provide for Fort Bend County to receive only $14,085.22 on its claim, with roughly 25% distribution to unsecured creditors.
The Current Proposed Chapter 13 Plan is predicated on Debtor selling the real property that he claims as his homestead.
Although Debtor claims that after paying secured creditors he would use the remaining proceeds to purchase a new homestead, so far as Movants can find the plan contains no provision requiring Debtor to turn over any excess proceeds not used to purchase a homestead within the six months required under Texas law in order to remain exempt.
Furthermore, the Current Proposed Chapter 13 Plan provides no insight as to how a debtor who has provided virtually no details as to his actual income would be able to fund plan payments.
20. Also on January 14, 2022, Debtor’s 341 meeting was conducted. After averring that his Amended Schedules and SOFA were complete and accurate, when asked various questions by creditors present Debtor appeared to make several statements contradictory to those sworn to in his Schedules and SOFA.1
At the 341 meeting, counsel for the Chapter 13 Trustee requested that Debtor’s counsel provide copies of various documents, including bank account statements and tax returns.
21. On January 18, 2022, Fort Bend County filed an objection to plan confirmation [Dkt. No. 64] challenging Debtor’s attempt to pay just $14,085.22 on its $316,316.64 ad valorem tax lien.
22. Also on January 18, 2022, the Chapter 13 Trustee filed an Objection to Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan and Motion to Dismiss or Convert to Chapter 7 [Dkt. No. 65].
Among other things, the Chapter 13 Trustee objects that Debtor had not provided certain requested documents relating to his financial affairs, was not providing for payment in full of secured and priority claims, and was presenting an infeasible plan.
23. Fort Bend County Appraisal District records list Debtor as owner of record of multiple pieces of real property not listed in his bankruptcy filings.
See Exhibit 8.
Fort Bend County Official Deed Records confirm Debtor’s ownership of real property not listed in his bankruptcy filings, including real property Debtor himself partitioned and received by Partition Deed Debtor signed in 2019.
See Exhibit 9.
In yet another lawsuit Debtor filed against Movants on July 28, 2021, Debtor admits in a verified petition (under penalty of perjury) that he “acquired another 4.13-acre property on Fulshear-Katy Road worth more than $619,000.00 to build his new home….”
See Exhibit 10, p. 6.
Debtor also admitted (again under penalty of perjury) that “Plaintiff [Debtor] had other nonexempt real property….
See Exhibit 10, p. 7.
None of these properties are listed in Debtor’s bankruptcy filings.
III. ARGUMENT AND LAW
24. “[T]he purpose of the bankruptcy code is to afford the honest but unfortunate debtor a fresh start, not to shield those who abuse the bankruptcy process in order to avoid paying their debts.” In re Molitor, 76 F.3d 218 (8th Cir. 1996).
25. Section 1307(c) provides that “on request of a party in interest … the court may convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 of this title or may dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interest of creditors and the estate, for cause[.]” 11 U.S.C.§ 1307(c). “Cause” includes filing a bankruptcy petition in bad faith. In re Nassar, 216 B.R. 606,608 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 1998) “The bad faith determination focuses on the totality of the circumstances, including: (1) whether the debtor has stated his debts and expenses accurately; (2) whether he has made any fraudulent representation to mislead the bankruptcy court; and (3) whether he has unfairly manipulated the bankruptcy code. Id. Failing to qualify as a Chapter 13 debtor dueto the debt limits contained in Section 109(e) is likewise cause to convert a petition to Chapter 7.
26. Filing misleading and inaccurate schedules to conceal assets from creditors also constitutes cause for conversion pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c). In re Jacobsen, 609 F.3d 647,662 (5th Cir. 2010). In determining whether a debtor has acted in bad faith such as would justify conversion or dismissal, the Court should consider the best interest of creditors and the bankruptcy estate. See id. (approving bankruptcy court’s discretionary decision to convert Chapter 13 case to
one under Chapter 7).
27. Debtor’s bad faith is shown in each step he has made in this bankruptcy case. Debtor has failed to disclose numerous assets; he amended his schedules and SOFA multiple times in response to creditors noting material deficiencies which would have inured to Debtor’s benefit and has purposefully mischaracterized debt. The Educational Credit Mgt. and IRS debts are not listed as being contingent or unliquidated, and yet at his 341 meeting Debtor attempted a garbled effort to concoct some sort of dispute with those debts. The “P. Yao” debt (the Final Judgment reflects the judgment creditor to be Yaowapa Ratana Aporn; that Final Judgment is attached as Exhibit 11) and Tricia and Ed Krenek, Melanson, Robbins debts are listed as contingent and disputed, but identified, accurately, as arising out of judgments. Judgment debts are not contingent debts and Debtor’s identification of them as such further reflects his bad faith efforts to game the system. See In re Thalmann, 469 B.R. 677, 682 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2012) (“Bad faith exists where a debtor lists a final judgment as a disputed debt in his schedules.”).2
28. Accordingly, at a minimum, Debtor’s undisputedly noncontingent, liquidated unsecured debts are as follows:
• Educational Credit Mgt. Student Loan $191,817.82
• Internal Revenue Service, 1040 taxes $39,000.00
• P. Yao Judgment $63,000.00
• Tricia and Ed Krenek, Melanson and Robbins Judgment $221,676.00
29. Moreover, based upon Movants’ extensive history dealing with Debtor in state court litigation, Debtor likely has engaged in or attempted to engage in various pre-bankruptcy asset transfers that he has not disclosed in this bankruptcy case.
This is borne out by Debtor’s admissions in the exhibits to Dkt. No. 51 and at his 341 meeting that he has moved assets to Nigeria;
the fact that Fort Bend County Appraisal District records list Debtor as owner of record of multiple pieces of real property not listed in his bankruptcy filings;
and the fact that Debtor in recent verified filings in State Court judicially admitted owning other real property not listed in his bankruptcy filings.
30. Debtor is not the quintessential honest but unfortunate debtor for whom the Bankruptcy Code was designed, but rather the atypical and extraordinary debtor whose bad faith actions justify conversion to Chapter 7 for the benefit of the creditors and the bankruptcy estate.
Where, as here, it appears that Debtor has substantial non-disclosed assets, Movants submit that it is in the best interests of the creditors and the bankruptcy estate that this case be converted to one under Chapter 7 so that a trustee may be appointed who can take control over administration of the assets (and recovery of the assets) of the bankruptcy estate.
31. Moreover, Debtor’s lack of candor in his disclosures in this bankruptcy court along with his failure to produce all requested/required documents (tax returns, banking records) underscore the fact that Debtor’s purpose in filing this bankruptcy case was not to reorganize and treat honestly and deal fairly with his creditors but rather to forestall foreclosure by Lakeland West and to hinder, defraud, and delay his creditors.
Indeed, at least based upon Debtor’s disclosures (which Movants believe may be replete with omissions of creditors), Debtor has a remarkably short list of creditors.
Taken in conjunction with the noticeably bare bones chapter 13 plan proposed by Debtor, it is apparent that Debtor does not take his obligation as a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code seriously.
This conclusion is further solidified by Debtor’s improper and baseless attempt to skirt the eligibility requirements for Chapter 13 by falsely identifying debts owed to multiple judgment creditors as being contingent, disputed debts.
32. Debtor has voluntarily invoked the expansive protections contained within the United States Bankruptcy Code.
The toll required to access those protections is honest and fulsome disclosure of one’s financial affairs;
Debtor has opted instead to continue his misguided efforts to hinder, defraud, and delay creditors by refusing to voluntarily disclose assets, choosing to spuriously mislabel debts in a naked effort to become eligible for Chapter 13, and generally continuing the imprudent courses of action that led up to the filing of this bankruptcy case.
Movants submit that only conversion to Chapter 7 will enable anything remotely resembling the best interests of creditors to be realized.
33. A proposed form of Order is attached as Exhibit 12.
Wherefore, premises considered, Movants respectfully request that the Court a) convert this case to one under Chapter 7, and b) grant Movants such other and further relief to which they may show themselves justly entitled.
GRAVES, DOUGHERTY, HEARON & MOODY, P.C.
401 Congress Avenue,
Austin, TX 78701
By: /s/ Brian T. Cumings
Brian T. Cumings
State Bar No. 24082882
ATTORNEYS FOR MOVANTS
Converting A Chapter 13 To A Chapter 7
Can You Convert Your Chapter 13 Bankruptcy To Chapter 7?
If you can no longer afford to make your Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan payments, you may be able to convert your case to a Chapter 7. Unless you have already received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge within the last eight years, you can convert your Chapter 13 case to Chapter 7 at any time. To convert your Chapter 13 to a Chapter 7, you simply file a Notice of Conversion with the court and pay a conversion fee. However, keep in mind that you must still qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in order to complete your case and receive a discharge (discussed below).
Reasons To Convert Your Case
In general, most debtors convert their Chapter 13 bankruptcy to Chapter 7 because:
- they can no longer afford to make Chapter 13 plan payments due to a change in their financial circumstances, or
- they wish to surrender a property (such as a house or car) that the Chapter 13 was designed to save.
Qualifying For Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
To qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you normally have to pass a means test. But bankruptcy courts are divided on whether the means test applies in a Chapter 7 case that was converted from a Chapter 13. While some jurisdictions require debtors to pass the means test when they convert their Chapter 13 to Chapter 7, other courts have held that the means test is not applicable in a conversion.
If you filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy because you could not qualify for a Chapter 7, you should discuss the matter with a knowledgeable bankruptcy attorney before converting your case. Also, keep in mind that even if the Court does not require you to comply with the means test when you convert, you may still have to explain to the court how your financial circumstances have changed and why you can no longer afford to be in a Chapter 13.
What Happens When You Convert Your Bankruptcy?
When you convert your case, you will be assigned a new Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee. You will also need to attend a new meeting of creditors (also called the 341 hearing). While you don’t have to file a new bankruptcy petition, you typically need to file additional forms and amend certain schedules after converting your bankruptcy.
In some cases, to show that your financial circumstances have changed and that you can no longer afford to make Chapter 13 payments, you may need to file amended Schedules I and J to reflect your current budget. The Court may also require a declaration explaining your reasons for converting. If you have a mortgage, car loan, or other secured debt, you will also need to file a Statement of Intention to tell the court what you intend to do with the property securing that loan.
You will also have to disclose if you have incurred any post-petition debts or acquired any post-petition assets while you were in the Chapter 13 case.
In Some Circumstances The Bankruptcy Court Can Force You Go Convert From Chapter 13 To Chapter 7
Under certain circumstances, the Court can force you to convert your Chapter 13 bankruptcy to Chapter 7 so that your nonexempt assets can be sold to pay your creditors. The most common reasons a Court may force you to convert include lying in your bankruptcy documents, hiding assets, filing for bankruptcy primarily to hinder or delay creditors, or otherwise abusing the bankruptcy system.
Can I Convert To A Chapter 7 Without Losing My House Or Car?
When you file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection, the Court requires you to make payments on a three to five-year payment plan. Sometimes, conversion to Chapter 7 is necessary because you can’t keep up with the payments required under your Chapter 13 plan, but conversion may be possible regardless of your reason. Depending on your situation, you may keep your house and car under Chapter 7, though generally the payment must be current.
Chapter 13 Vs. Chapter 7
Unlike Chapter 13, Chapter 7 requires no repayment plan. Instead, your nonexempt assets can be seized by a Court-appointed bankruptcy trustee and sold, or liquidated, to pay your debts. You can convert your Chapter 13 case to a Chapter 7 case by filing a motion to convert in bankruptcy Court, but you must first qualify for Chapter 7. You will qualify if you earn less than your state’s median income for a family of the same size as yours. If you earn more, the Court may require you to pass a means test based on your disposable income, which is your total income minus allowable deductions.
Under Chapter 7, you may be able to keep assets, including your house and car, if the asset is fully exempt under federal or state law and you make the payments due on these assets. Common exemptions include homes, vehicles, personal property, household goods and appliances, but you will need to speak to an experienced bankruptcy lawyer to determine if you will be able to keep assets that are important to you.
If you owe money on a secured debt, like your house or your car, you can reaffirm the debt during your Chapter 7 case instead of allowing the lender to take your property. Reaffirmation means you accept the debt and promise to pay it even though it could otherwise be eliminated through your bankruptcy case. For example, if you owe $10,000 on a car loan for a car that now is worth $7,000, reaffirmation means you agree to pay the entire $10,000 instead of allowing the lender to take the car. You must convince both the lender and the Court that they should allow a reaffirmation of the debt. You may need show that you are current with your payments and prove you can keep up with the future payments.
You can also keep your car or home by redeeming it. To redeem, you pay the fair market value of the property regardless of what you owe on the loan. This can be beneficial if you owe more on your loan than the property is worth. However, you cannot use the existing loan’s terms; you must get a new loan to pay off your lender immediately or pay the redemption amount in full. Since you are going through bankruptcy, it may be difficult to get a loan at reasonable rates.
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:21-cv-03201
Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP
|Diogu v. Lakeland West Capital 41, L.L.C. et al
Assigned to: Judge Sim Lake
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
|Date Filed: 10/01/2021
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
|Diogu Kalu Diogu, II||represented by||Tanika J. Solomon
T. J. Solomon Law Group, P.L.L.C.
2120 Welch Street
Houston, TX 77019
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
|Lakeland West Capital 41, L.L.C.||represented by||Benjamin Witten Allen
Wallace & Allen, LLP
Houston, TX 77002
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
|Veritex Community Bank|
|Date Filed||#||Docket Text|
|10/01/2021||1||NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 434th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, case number 21-DCV-287068 (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0541-27132912) filed by Lakeland West Capital 41, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Civil Cover Sheet)(Allen, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/01/2021)|
|10/04/2021||2||ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 1/21/2022 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 9B before Judge Sim Lake. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 10/04/2021)|
|Date Filed||Document Text|
|November 16, 2021||Filing 21 ORDER – Pltf filed a #20 Notice of Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Plaintiff asserts that the dismissal is warranted pursuant to the filing of his Chapter 13 Bankruptcy on November 2, 2021. Accordingly, this Court accepts the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice against refiling the same. Each party will bear its own costs…*** Case terminated on 11/16/21. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4)|
|November 15, 2021||Filing 20 NOTICE of Dismissal as to All Parties by Diogu Kalu Diogu, II, filed. (Diogu, Diogu)|
|November 12, 2021||Filing 19 SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY by Lakeland West Capital 41, L.L.C., filed.(Allen, Benjamin)|
|November 12, 2021||Filing 18 MOTION to Dismiss #8 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc., Motions referred to Christina A Bryan. by Lakeland West Capital 41, L.L.C., filed. Motion Docket Date 12/3/2021. (Allen, Benjamin)|
|November 8, 2021||Filing 17 ORDER granting #10 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant’s’ Motions.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Christina A Bryan) Parties notified.(cjan, 4)|
|November 1, 2021||Filing 16 ORDER – CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Christina A Bryan. Parties to advise court w/in 20 days if they will consent to Judge Bryan. *** Initial Conference set for 1/21/2022 at 03:00 PM before Judge Sim Lake is CANCELLED. *** (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) (Attachments: #1 Consent Form) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4)|
|November 1, 2021||Filing 15 ORDER – Plaintiff seeks to restrain a foreclosure of his home scheduled for November 2, 2021. Having carefully considered the parties arguments, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s #8 First Amended Complaint and #9 Ex Parte EMERGENCY MOTION First MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order should be and are hereby DENIED because Plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits or that he will suffer irreparable injury if the foreclosure occurs as scheduled on November 2, 2021. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4)|
|November 1, 2021||Filing 14 First CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Diogu Kalu Diogu, II, filed.(Diogu, Diogu)|
|November 1, 2021||Filing 13 First Proposed Pretrial Order by Diogu Kalu Diogu, II(Diogu, Diogu)|
|November 1, 2021||Filing 12 First REPLY to Response to #4 MOTION to Dismiss Original Complaint, #10 First MOTION for Extension of Time Respond to Defendants’ motion to Dismiss, #3 MOTION to Dismiss , #9 Ex Parte EMERGENCY MOTIONFirst MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, #5 MOTION for Joinder as to #4 MOTION to Dismiss Original Complaint, filed by Diogu Kalu Diogu, II. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Rescission of Laon)(Diogu, Diogu)|
|October 31, 2021||Filing 11 RESPONSE in Opposition to #9 Ex Parte EMERGENCY MOTIONFirst MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, filed by Lakeland West Capital 41, L.L.C.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Proposed Order)(Allen, Benjamin)|
|October 29, 2021||Filing 10 First MOTION for Extension of Time Respond to Defendants’ motion to Dismiss by Diogu Kalu Diogu, II, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/19/2021. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Diogu, Diogu)|
|October 29, 2021||Filing 9 Ex Parte EMERGENCY MOTION( Motion Docket Date 11/19/2021.), First MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Diogu Kalu Diogu, II, filed. (Attachments: #1 Complaint Amended Complaint In support, #2 Exhibit Exhibits 1-15, #3 Affidavit In support for TRO, #4 Exhibit Exhibits 1, 4 and 15)(Diogu, Diogu)|
|October 29, 2021||Filing 8 First AMENDED COMPLAINT with JURY DEMAND against All Defendants filed by Diogu Kalu Diogu, II. Related document: #1 Notice of Removal, filed by Lakeland West Capital 41, L.L.C.. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Support of Amended Complaint, #2 Exhibit Exhibits 1-15)(Diogu, Diogu)|
|October 19, 2021||Filing 7 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Lakeland West Capital 41, L.L.C., filed.(Allen, Benjamin)|
|October 19, 2021||Filing 6 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Veritex Community Bank, filed.(Clark, Brian)|
|October 8, 2021||Filing 5 MOTION for Joinder as to #4 MOTION to Dismiss Original Complaint by Lakeland West Capital 41, L.L.C., filed. Motion Docket Date 10/29/2021. (Allen, Benjamin)|
|October 8, 2021||Filing 4 MOTION to Dismiss Original Complaint by Veritex Community Bank, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/29/2021. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Order)(Clark, Brian)|
|October 8, 2021||Filing 3 MOTION to Dismiss by Lakeland West Capital 41, L.L.C., filed. Motion Docket Date 10/29/2021. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Proposed Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss)(Allen, Benjamin)|
|October 4, 2021||Filing 2 ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 1/21/2022 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 9B before Judge Sim Lake. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4)|
|October 1, 2021||Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 434th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, case number 21-DCV-287068 (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0541-27132912) filed by Lakeland West Capital 41, L.L.C.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Civil Cover Sheet)(Allen, Benjamin)|
Southern District of Texas (Houston)
Bankruptcy Petition #: 21-33581
|Assigned to: Bankruptcy Judge David R Jones
Diogu Kalu Diogu, II
4726 Gainsborough Dr
Brookshire, TX 77423
OUTSIDE U. S.
SSN / ITIN: xxx-xx-9066
|represented by||Diogu Kalu Diogu, II
Attorney at Law
4726 Gainsborough Dr
Brookshire, TX 77423
Fax : 713-429-5237
Email: firstname.lastname@example.orgMichael Glen Walker, Sr
Walker & Patterson, P.C.
Houston, TX 77092
Fax : 713-956-5570
William E. Heitkamp
Office of Chapter 13 Trustee
9821 Katy Freeway
Houston, TX 77024
Office of the US Trustee
515 Rusk Ave
Houston, TX 77002
|Filing Date||#||Docket Text|
(14 pgs; 3 docs)
|Amended Schedule A/B: Property for Individual (Filed By Diogu Kalu Diogu II). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1 # 2 Exhibit Attachment 2) (Diogu, Diogu) (Entered: 12/17/2021)|
(164 pgs; 23 docs)
|Exhibit List (Filed By Lakeland West Capital 41, LLC ).(Related document(s):46 Exhibit List, Witness List) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 29 # 2 Exhibit 30 # 3 Exhibit 31 # 4 Exhibit 32 # 5 Exhibit 33 # 6 Exhibit 34 # 7 Exhibit 35 # 8 Exhibit 36 # 9 Exhibit 37 # 10 Exhibit 38 # 11 Exhibit 39 # 12 Exhibit 40 # 13 Exhibit 41 # 14 Exhibit 42 # 15 Exhibit 43 # 16 Exhibit 44 # 17 Exhibit 45 # 18 Exhibit 46 # 19 Exhibit 47 # 20 Exhibit 48 # 21 Exhibit 49 # 22 Exhibit 50) (Lewinski, Kim) (Entered: 12/17/2021)|
|12/17/2021||53||Courtroom Minutes. Time Hearing Held: 9:00 AM. Appearances: Diogu Kalu Diogu, II, Pro se Debtor; Michael Durrscmidt and Kim Liwinski for Lakeland West Capital 41, LLC. (Related document(s):28 Motion for Relief From Stay) Lakeland West Capital 41, LLC exhibits 46-19, 46-23 through 46-28, 46-20, 46-22 admitted. The Court heard from all interested parties. By agreement, today’s Hearing is continued to 1/19/2022 at 03:30 PM at Houston, Courtroom 400 (DRJ). (VrianaPortillo) (Entered: 12/17/2021)|
(3 pgs; 2 docs)
|Proposed Order Submission After Hearing (Filed By Lakeland West Capital 41, LLC ).(Related document(s):28 Motion for Relief From Stay) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – Legal Description) (Lewinski, Kim) (Entered: 12/17/2021)|
|PDF with attached Audio File. Court Date & Time [ 12/17/2021 9:00:17 AM ]. File Size [ 43974 KB ]. Run Time [ 01:31:37 ]. (admin). (Entered: 12/17/2021)|
|Interim Order Regarding Lakeland West Capital 41, L.L.C.’s Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Regarding 4726 Gainsborough Dr., Brookshire, TX 77423 Signed on 12/20/2021 (Related document(s):28 Motion for Relief From Stay) (emiller) (Entered: 12/20/2021)|
|Amended Objection to Confirmation of Plan Filed by Fort Bend County. (Related document(s):35 Objection to Confirmation of the Plan) (Dillman, John) (Entered: 12/21/2021)|
|Notice of Appearance and Request for Notice Filed by Michael Glen Walker Sr Filed by on behalf of Diogu Kalu Diogu II (Walker, Michael) (Entered: 12/22/2021)|
|BNC Certificate of Mailing. (Related document(s):56 Generic Order) No. of Notices: 2. Notice Date 12/22/2021. (Admin.) (Entered: 12/22/2021)|
|Notice of Appearance and Request for Notice Filed by Brian Talbot Cumings Filed by on behalf of Denise Robbins, David Melanson, Tricia Krenek, Eddie Krenek (Cumings, Brian) (Entered: 01/04/2022)|