Barnes v. Field
| Chad Barry Barnes |
| Dane S. Field |
| Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC |
| 1:2016cv00230 |
| May 11, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| Hawaii Office |
| Honolulu |
| KEVIN S.C. CHANG |
| LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI |
| Bankruptcy Appeal (801) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1334 Bankruptcy Appeal |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
65
ORDER: ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON REMANDED ISSUES; GRANTING APPEAL OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S MAY 9, 2016 ORDER GRANTING TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR ORDER (I) AUTHORIZING SALE OF BOAT AND TRAILER UNDER BANKRUPTCY CODE § 363, AND (II) OTHERWISE GRANTING RELIEF, FILED ON MARCH 29, 2016; AND REVERSING THE MAY 9, 2016 ORDER re 1 , 51 - Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 5/22/2019. On the basis of the foregoing, the bankruptcy court's Memorandum of Decision on Remanded Issues, filed December 14, 2018, is HEREBY ADOPTED IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART. Further, Barnes's appeal of the bankruptcy court's May 9, 2016 Order Gr anting Trustee's Motion for Order (I) Authorizing Sale of Boat and Trailer Under Bankruptcy Code § 363, and (II) Otherwise Granting Relief, Filed on March 29, 2016, is HEREBY GRANTED and the 5/9/16 Bankruptcy Order is HEREBY REVERSED. This Court DEFERS to the district court in Barnes v. Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC, et al., CV 13-00002 ACK-RLP, regarding the effect of the reversal of the 5/9/16 Bankruptcy Order. The Clerk's Office is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case on June 6, 2019, unless a timely motion for reconsideration is filed. (emt, )
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER Vacating March 14, 2017 and June 26, 2017 Orders and Remanding The Case To The Bankruptcy Court To Consider Issues On Remand From The Ninth Circuit re: 33 40 . "Because the ruling that Appellant lacked standing to seek a stay of the sale of the Boat was the primary basis for this Courts 3/14/17 Order, this Court concludes that both of the issues identified by the Ninth Circuit are issues the bankruptcy court should address in the first instance. This Court therefore VACAT ES its 3/14/17 Order and its 6/26/17 Order and REMANDS the instant case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. The bankruptcy court is DIRECTED to address the following issues:1) whether Appellant had prudential standing to seek a stay of t he sale of the Boat; 2) if Appellant had prudential standing, whether the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to authorize the sale; and 3) whether to avoid the sale of the Boat. Within seven days after it has issued its written order(s) ruling on t hese issues, the bankruptcy court shall transmit its orders(s) to this Court. This Court will thereafter schedule a status conference to address how the remainder of the instant appeal will proceed." Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 7/23/2018. (cib, )
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL re 34 Motion for Reconsideration re 1 Bankruptcy Appeal, filed by Chad Barry Barnes, re 35 Amended MOTION for Reconsiderat ion re 33 Order. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 06/26/2017. (eps, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Hawaii District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
