Leroy Carrillo, Jr. v. Philip J. Montoya, Chapter 7 Trustee, et al.

Summary

The Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court’s denial of Leroy Carrillo, Jr.’s motions seeking recovery of settlement funds and relief related to alleged attorney misconduct, fraud, malpractice, and improper administration of his reopened Chapter 7 case. The Panel held that Carrillo’s challenge to the 2021 reopening of the case was untimely and, reviewing the bankruptcy court’s findings incorporated into the appealed order, concluded that reopening the case to administer assets was proper. The opinion is unpublished and nonprecedential, subject to specified exceptions.

Holdings

1. The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in reopening the closed Chapter 7 case sua sponte to administer the previously unscheduled tort asset. The challenge to the reopening itself was also untimely because the reopening order was final and Carrillo did not appeal it within the applicable period.
2. The alleged lack of notice of the docket entry reopening the case did not establish that the reopening was improper because reopening is a ministerial act that grants no substantive relief, and neither § 350(b) nor Rule 5010 expressly requires notice of reopening.
3. Carrillo failed to show judicial bias or misconduct; adverse rulings and ordinary courtroom administration, including rulings on continuances, do not alone demonstrate bias or partiality.
4. The panel declined to review arguments that Carrillo failed to preserve below, failed to argue plain error, inadequately briefed, or unsupported with the necessary transcripts and record materials.
5. Carrillo was not entitled to restitution or damages because he failed to establish that the bankruptcy court committed factual, legal, or discretionary error in denying his motions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in reopening Carrillo's Chapter 7 case.
2. Whether the bankruptcy court violated Carrillo's due-process rights by proceeding without adequate notice or opportunity to be heard.
3. Whether the bankruptcy court engaged in judicial bias or misconduct.
4. Whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by proceeding without Carrillo's attendance, omitting portions of hearing recordings, or failing to provide hearing materials.
5. Whether the appointment of the Chapter 7 trustee and Rothstein Donatelli as special counsel was improper because of an alleged conflict of interest.
6. Whether Carrillo was entitled to restitution or damages for alleged misappropriation, legal malpractice, judicial error, or misconduct.
7. Whether the bankruptcy court clearly erred in findings concerning Rothstein Donatelli's fees and testimony.

Disposition

affirmed