Docstoc

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT Eastern District of California (PDF)

Document Sample
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT Eastern District of California (PDF) Powered By Docstoc
					                          UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
                                Eastern District of California

                                 Honorable Ronald H. Sargis
                                     Bankruptcy Judge
                                   Sacramento, California

                               September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.


1.   09-44001-E-13   BARRY/LISA STOELTING                 MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
     SJS-2           Dominique Sopko                      8-15-11 [106]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Not Provided. The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
     supporting pleadings were served on Debtors, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
     parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
     August 15, 2011. However, the Internal Revenue Service was not properly served.
     By the court’s calculation, 36 days’ notice was provided. 35 days’ notice is
     required.

     Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
     Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). The failure
     of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
     least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
     9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
     nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The
     court has determined that oral argument will not be of assistance in resolving
     this matter. No oral argument will be presented and the court shall issue its
     ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

     The Motion to Confirm the Modified Plan is denied.            No appearance required.

             Debtors seek to modify the order confirming their plan on the terms
     outlined in a modified plan. No modified plan has been filed. Nor is there
     evidence that the plan was served on all parties together with the motion as
     required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(d).

             Moreover, Local Bankruptcy Rule 2002-1 provides that notices in
     adversary proceedings and contested matters that are served on the Internal
     Revenue Service shall be mailed to three entities at three different addresses,
     including the Office of the United States Attorney, unless a different address
     is specified:

                                  LOCAL RULE 2002-1
                                 Notice Requirements

             (a) Listing the United States as a Creditor; Notice to the
             United States. When listing an indebtedness to the United States
             for other than taxes and when giving notice, as required by FRBP
             2002(j)(4), the debtor shall list both the U.S. Attorney and the

                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 1 of 180 -
       federal agency through which the debtor became indebted. The
       address of the notice to the U.S. Attorney shall include, in
       parenthesis, the name of the federal agency as follows:

               For Cases filed in the Sacramento Division:
               United States Attorney
               (For [insert name of agency])
               501 I Street, Suite 10-100
               Sacramento, CA 95814

               For Cases filed in the Modesto and Fresno Divisions:
               United States Attorney
               (For [insert name of agency])
               2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401
               Fresno, CA 93721-1318

       . . .

       (c) Notice to the Internal Revenue Service. In addition to
       addresses specified on the roster of governmental agencies
       maintained by the Clerk, notices in adversary proceedings and
       contested matters relating to the Internal Revenue Service shall
       be sent to all of the following addresses:

               (1)    United States Department of Justice
                      Civil Trial Section, Western Region
                      Box 683, Ben Franklin Station
                      Washington, D.C. 20044

               (2)    United States Attorney as specified in LBR 2002-
                      1(a) above; and,

               (3)    Internal   Revenue   Service  at   the addresses
                      specified on the roster of governmental agencies
                      maintained by the Clerk.

The proof of service lists only the following addresses as those used for
service on the Internal Revenue Service:

       Internal Revenue Service
       Centralized Insolvency Operations
       PO Box 7346
       Philadelphia, PA 19101-7346

       Atty Gen US Dept of Justice
       Civil Trail Sec Western Reg
       PO Box 683 Ben Franklin Stat
       Washington, DC 20044-0583

       US Atty Chief Tax Division
       450 Golden Gate Ave

                          September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                 - Page 2 of 180 -
             10th Floor Box 36055
             San Francisco, CA 94102-3661

     The proof of service states that the addresses used for service are the
     preferred addresses for the Internal Revenue Service specified in a Notice of
     Address filed by that governmental entity.

             A motion is a contested matter. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014. The proof
     of service in this case indicates service was not made upon the U.S. Attorney
     for the Eastern District of California and service was therefore inadequate.

             The motion is denied without prejudice.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
             Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
             the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
             appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
             without prejudice and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not
             confirmed.


2.   06-21202-E-13   TYSINN GHIA                          CONTINUED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
     CJY-3           Christian J. Younger                 DISCHARGE
                                                          7-19-11 [120]

     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on July 19, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
     other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
     court’s calculation, 63 days' notice was provided.

     Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
     the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
     respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
     14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
     9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion. Cf.
     Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
     will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
     hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
     Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
     interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
     court will issue its ruling from the parties' pleadings.

     The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.              No appearance required.


                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 3 of 180 -
        With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee's final report was filed
on August 10, 2011, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee
was entered on September 6, 2011 (Dckt. 127). The entry of an order approving
the final report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See
In re Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

        The Debtor's Declaration certifies that the Debtor:

        1. has completed the plan payments,
        2. has completed a financial management course and filed the
        certificate with the court,
        3. does not have any delinquent domestic support obligations,
        4. has not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7, 11, or 12
        during the four-year period prior to filing of this case or a
        discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-year period prior to
        filing of this case,
        5. is not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1), and
        6. is not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11 U.S.C.
        § 522(q)(1).

        There being no objection, the Debtor is entitled to a discharge.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the Civil
        Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
        Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
        shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                   - Page 4 of 180 -
3.   09-41103-E-13   DEBRA JACKSON                        MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
     SDB-3           W. Scott de Bie                      8-11-11 [38]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
     supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors, parties
     requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on August
     11, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 40 days’ notice was provided. 35 days’
     notice is required.

     Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
     Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). The failure
     of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
     least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
     9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
     nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
     because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
     party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
     Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
     defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
     review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
     matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
     from the parties’ pleadings.

     The Motion to Confirm the Modified Plan is granted.           No appearance required.

             11 U.S.C. § 1329 permits a debtor to modify a plan after confirmation.
     The modified Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and is confirmed.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
             Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
             the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
             appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
             Chapter 13 Plan filed on August 11, 2011, is confirmed, and
             counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
             confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
             the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
             approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
             order to the court.




                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 5 of 180 -
4.   10-51007-E-13   ROBERT/KARA WAGNER                   MOTION TO APPROVE LOAN
     MAC-2           Marc A. Carpenter                    MODIFICATION
                                                          9-2-11 [29]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(2) Motion.

     Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
     supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors, parties
     requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on September
     2, 2011. However, the U.S. Department of Education was not properly served.
     By the court’s calculation, 18 days’ notice was provided. 14 days’ notice is
     required.

          Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(j) and Local Rule 2002-1(a)
     require service on the United States Attorney when giving notice for an
     indebtedness to the United States for other than taxes. Here, Debtor discloses
     an indebtedness to the United States through the Department of Education.
     While attempted to notice the Department of Education, notice was set to and
     address that does not match the Roster of Governmental Agencies maintained by
     the Office of the Clerk and there is no evidence that United States Attorney
     was noticed at all. With the Trustee’s consent, the Motion could have been
     presented to the court without hearing and without further notice. The court
     will waive the defect in the notice for this motion in this case. Counsel
     should not rely upon the court waiving such a defect for future motions.

     Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Approve a Loan Modification was properly set
     for hearing on the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(2) and
     General Order 05-03, ¶ 10(e). Consequently, the creditors, the Trustee, the
     U.S. Trustee, and any other parties in interest were not required to file a
     written response or opposition to the motion.      If any of these potential
     respondents appear at the hearing and offers opposition to the motion, the
     court will set a briefing schedule and a final hearing unless there is no need
     to develop the record further. If no opposition is offered at the hearing, the
     court will take up the merits of the motion. Below is the court’s tentative
     ruling, rendered on the assumption that there will be no opposition to the
     motion.   Obviously, if there is opposition, the court may reconsider this
     tentative ruling.

     The court’s tentative decision is to grant the Motion to Approve the Loan
     Modification. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled
     hearing, where the parties shall address the issues identified in this
     tentative ruling and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the
     court’s resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its
     final ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and
     conclusions of law:

          Bank of America, N.A., successor-in-interest to BAC Home Loans Servicing,
     LP, whose claim the plan provides for in Class 4, has agreed to a loan
     modification which will reduce the Debtors’ monthly mortgage payment from the
     current $1,706.10 to $975.19. The modification will capitalize the prepetition
     arrears and provides for stepped increases in the interest rate from 2.0% to
     4.5% over the next eight years.


                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 6 of 180 -
      There being no objection from the Trustee or other parties in interest,
and the motion complying with the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 364(d), the Motion
to Approve the Loan Modification is granted.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

     Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the Civil
     Minutes for the hearing.

            The Motion to Approve the Loan Modification filed by the
     Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of the
     pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing,

            IT IS ORDERED that the Debtors are authorized to amend the
     terms of their loan with Bank of America, N.A., which is secured by
     the real property commonly known as 1102 Coloma Way, Roseville,
     California, and such other terms as stated in the Modification
     Agreement filed as Exhibit “B,” Docket Entry No. 32, in support of
     the Motion.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                   - Page 7 of 180 -
5.   10-31408-E-13   THOMAS/BONNIE HUSAK                  CONTINUED OBJECTION TO CLAIM OF
     SAC-4           Scott A. CoBen                       CHRISTINE HAAS, CLAIM NUMBER 3
                                                          7-22-11 [72]


     Local Rule 3007-1(c)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
     supporting pleadings were served on Debtors, Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent
     creditor, respondent creditor’s attorney, and Office of the United States
     Trustee on July 22, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 46 days’ notice was
     provided. 44 days’ notice is required.

     Tentative Ruling: This Objection to a Proof of Claim has been set for hearing
     on the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 3007-1(c)(1) and General Order
     05-03, Paragraph 6(d). The failure of the respondent and other parties in
     interest to file written opposition at least 14 days prior to the hearing as
     required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the
     equivalent of a statement of nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
     53 (9th Cir. 1995). The Creditor’s attorney appeared at the hearing and the
     court continued the matter so an opposition could be filed.       FN.1. If it
     appears at the hearing that disputed material factual issues remain to be
     resolved, a later evidentiary hearing will be set. Local Bankr. R. 9014-1(g).

         --------------------------------------------------------------------
     FN.1. At the initial hearing, respondent creditor’s attorney argued that she
     was not served and first learned of the hearing from the Creditor the day
     before. The proof of service clearly indicates that respondent creditor’s
     attorney was served at an address which matches the office address listed on
     the opposition.

             Mail that is properly addressed, stamped, and deposited into the mail
     is presumed to be received by the addressee. U.S. v. Levoy (In re Levoy), 182
     B.R. 827, 834 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995) (citing In re Bucknum, 951 F.2d 204, 207
     (9th Cir. 1991)). The presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing
     evidence that the mailing was not, in fact, accomplished. Levoy, 182 B.R. at
     834-835 (citing Bucknum, 951 F.2d at 207)).      The mere statement that the
     pleadings were not received is insufficient to rebut proof that the documents
     were properly mailed and therefore served. Cf. Cossio v. Cate (In re Cossio),
     163 B.R. 150, 155 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1994), aff’d 56 F.3d 70 (9th Cir. 1995). No
     evidence has been offered to rebut the presumption that the objection and
     supporting pleadings were received by respondent creditor’s attorney.

             Moreover, the argument offered by creditor’s attorney indicates that
     the creditor herself received notice. However, in the interest of justice, the
     court will consider the opposition.
         --------------------------------------------------------------------

     The court’s tentative decision is to sustain the Objection to Proof of Claim
     Number 3 as amended by Proof of Claim Number 6 filed in the name of Christine
     Hass. This is without prejudice to Christine Hass filing an amended proof of
     claim on or before October 15, 2011, which clearly sets forth an alleged claim
     in this case. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled


                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 8 of 180 -
hearing, where the parties shall address the issues identified in this
tentative ruling and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the
court’s resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its
final ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law:

        The Proof of Claim at issue, listed as claim number 3 on the court’s
official claims registry, asserts a $15,678.13 unsecured claim. The Debtor
objects to the Claim on the basis that the claim suffers from a series of
procedural defects and that they are not liable for the underlying claim.

        Section 502(a) provides that a claim supported by a Proof of Claim is
allowed unless a party in interest objects. Once an objection has been filed,
the court may determine the amount of the claim after a noticed hearing. 11
U.S.C. § 502(b).    It is settled law in the Ninth Circuit that the party
objecting to a proof of claim has the burden of presenting substantial factual
basis to overcome the prima facie validity of a proof of claim and the evidence
must be of probative force equal to that of the creditor’s proof of claim.
Wright v. Holm (In re Holm), 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); see also United
Student Funds, Inc. v. Wylie (In re Wylie), 349 B.R. 204, 210 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.
2006).

        Here, the proof of claim was timely filed but it suffers from a series
of defects: the claim form is unsigned, lists the Chapter 13 Trustee as where
notices should be sent, and Debtors’ attorney as where payments should be sent.
Creditor’s proof of claim is required to conform to the proof of claim form.
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(a). Moreover, the proof of claim form must be executed
by either the creditor or creditor’s authorized agent. Id. at 3001(b).
However, each of these procedural defects are purported to have been cured by
the filing of an amended proof of claim on August 15, 2011. See POC No. 6. The
amended proof of claim fails to cure these defects.

        Debtors also dispute that they are responsible for the injuries which
gave rise to Ms. Hass’s workers’ compensation claim. Creditor’s attorney,
Alice Strömbom, argues that the proper venue for the resolution of this dispute
is the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, but this court has denied Ms.
Hass’s motions for relief from the automatic stay. FN.2. Ms. Strömbom argues
that the amended claim for $83,313.00 is an estimate of what Ms. Hass would
recover if she prevailed on all issues at trial.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
FN.2. The court notes that while Ms. Strömbom is licenced to practice before
California state courts, it does not appear that she is a member of the bar of
this court. A search of the attorney admission records of the U.S. District
Court does not show that Ms. Strömbom has been admitted to the federal bar.
Since Ms. Strömbom is not a member of the District Court’s bar she is by
extension not a member of this court’s bar. See Local Bankr. R. 1001-1(c)
(attorney admission governed by local rules of the U.S. District Court). Ms.
Strömbom is not eligible for admission on a pro hac vice application.
E.D. Cal. L.R. 180(b)(2) incorporated by Local Bankr. R. 1001-1(c).

        At the hearing, Ms. Strömbom may address for the court whether she is
admitted to practice in the federal courts of the Eastern District of
California, and if not, what steps she has taken to remedy this situation.

                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                   - Page 9 of 180 -
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

        As stated above, the objection to claim was filed on July 22, 2011, and
relates to the original proof of claim. The objection does not go to the
substance of the claim, but procedural defects. It is also asserted that the
proof of claim form does not provide “evidence” that the Debtors are liable,
except an itemized statement of certain medical expenses. It is further argued
that since this creditor has filed claims with the California uninsured
Employers fund, then she cannot make this claim against the Debtors.

        The amended proof of claim bears an illegible signature for which no
name or title for the signer are provided, nor are there any documents that
support the claim. Proof of Claim Number 6 states that it amends previously
filed claim number 3. The prior Proof of Claim Number 3 has attached to it
statements from Trinidad Medical Corporation which provide no information as
to the basis of the claim.     Further, these documents are attached to an
unsigned proof of claim form which has now been replaced on the illegibly-
signed, unidentified-signatory amended proof of claim.

        Proof of Claim Number 6 only provides the name an address for Alice
Strömbom, who asserts in the opposition that she is the attorney for Christine
Hass in a Workers’ Compensation Claim proceeding. No power of attorney has
been provided or any documentation that Ms. Strömbom is authorized to receive
service pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004.

        The response to the objection fails to state the basis for this claim.
Further, Counsel for the claimant fails to comply with the basic requirements
for the preparation and filing of pleadings in this court. “Motions, notices,
objections, responses, replies, declarations, affidavits, other documentary
evidence, memoranda of points and authorities, other supporting documents,
proofs of service, and related pleadings shall be filed as separate documents.”
Rev. Guidelines for the Prep. of Documents ¶(3)(a) incorporated by Local Bankr.
R. 9014-1(d)(1). Rather than attempting to articulate for the Debtors and the
court the basis for the claim, Counsel merely improperly attaches 24 pages of
exhibits and leaves it to the court to divine the basis for this alleged claim.
The attachments appear to be only excerpts of larger documents which are
presented to the court with pages apparently out of order. The court declines
this creditor’s invitation to construct the basis for any alleged claim in this
case.

        From reviewing the pleadings, this court is concerned as to whether any
effective claim is or will be asserted in this case. Further, given that the
objection stated by the Debtors fails to frame any issues other procedural and
the legal issue that the filing of a claim with the California Uninsured
Employers Fund results in this creditor being prohibited from filing a claim
in this case. No basis for this legal asserted is stated. The California
Uninsured Employers Fund is listed it on Schedule F for a contingent,
unliquidated and disputed claim subject to setoff and the amended mailing
matrix, Dckts. 4 and 17, but no specific representative is listed for this
department of the State of California.

        For the court to overrule the objection and allow this matter to
proceed would clearly allow it to lumber forward without structure. Further,
it would leave Christine Hass without any legal representative admitted to

                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 10 of 180 -
practice in the Eastern District of California. The court will not be a party
in assisting counsel in attempting to circumvent the requirements of the United
States District Court to practice in this federal court. Further, it appears
as to whether counsel should be attempting to represent Ms. Hass in this
bankruptcy case. As stated by Alice Strömbom herself in the Answer to the
Objection to Claim filed on September 9, 2011, Dckt. 83,

        A.     “Upon review of its file, this office does not believe that it
               filed a proof of claim on August 19, 2010.” This appears to be
               a reference to Proof of Claim No. 3 filed on August 20, 2010).

        B.     “This office filed a Proof of Claim on August 3, 2011. (See
               attached Exhibit A incorporated herein by reference.)” This
               Exhibit A is a proof of claim form with the date August 2,
               2010, which does not bear a filed stamp from the Clerk of the
               Bankruptcy Court. No such proof of claim form is found in the
               file in this case or the Official Registry of Claim in this
               case.

        C.     Counsel alleges that her office was contacted by the Chapter 13
               Trustee about the defects in Proof of Claim Number 3 in this
               case filed in the name of Christine Hass.     Exhibit B to the
               opposition is a facsimile cover sheet from the Chapter 13
               Trustee’s office requesting that the notice, payment names, and
               payment addresses be corrected.

        D.     Counsel then states, “As this office has not heretofore
               practiced bankruptcy law, this office erroneously and
               automatically assumed an error had been made on its part and
               proceeded to file an amended claim on August 15, 2011, without
               first looking at its August 3, 2010 Proof of claim.”

        E.     The opposition also states that “Efforts to obtain relief from
               the stay so that Ms. Hass can move forward on her workers
               compensation claim have thus far failed to date.”    The court
               identified a motion for relief from the automatic staying
               having been filed for Christine Hass on December 23, 2010, by
               Alice Strömbom. That motion was denied without prejudice by an
               order of this court entered on February 3, 2011. The denial
               was due to substantive defects in the motion. Civ. Min., Jan
               25, 2011, Dckt. 44.

               A second motion for relief from the automatic stay was filed in
               for Christine Hass on February 7, 2011, again by Alice
               Strömbom. This second motion was denied without prejudice by
               order of the court entered on April 4, 2011. In ruling on the
               second motion for relief from the automatic stay the court
               expressly directed Alice Strömbom to Local Bankruptcy Rule.
               9014-1(f)(1), 1001-1)(g), and the Revised Guidelines for the
               Preparation of Documents in this District. In addition, the
               court addressed the lack of substantive pleading from both
               attorneys’ on the matter.    Dckt. 53.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 11 of 180 -
          What is clear in this case is that Christine Hass is not represented
by   counsel who is allowed to appear in federal courts of the Eastern District
of   California and has not represented parties in bankruptcy cases. In addition
to   improperly filing pleadings in this court, counsel also directs the court
to   an unfiled proof of claim and representing that it was filed in this case.

        Just as the court will not be party to violating the Rules of the
United States District Court concerning the admission to practice law, the
court will not purport to enter an order which determines that Christine Hass
can have no claim when she is not represented by counsel who can legally appear
in this court. Therefore, the court sustains the objection to Proof of Claim
3 as amended by Proof of Claim No. 6, without prejudice to Christine Hass
filing a final amended proof of claim on or before October 15, 2011, which she
either personally signs in pro se for which she provides her address for
service or is represented by counsel admitted to practice in the Eastern
District of California. If represented by counsel admitted to appear in the
Eastern District of California, such counsel shall also file a certificate in
which Christine Hass provides her address for service of process pursuant to
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004. If counsel admitted to practice in
the Eastern District of California is to receive service of the objection, the
certificate signed by Christine Hass shall so expressly state.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

          Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
          Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                 The Objection to the Proof of Claim filed for Christine
          Hass in this case having been presented to the court, and upon
          review of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and
          good cause appearing,

                 IT IS ORDERED that the Objection to Proof of Claim
          Number 3 which has been amended by Proof of Claim Number 6 is
          sustained as to both proofs of claim and both the claim is
          disallowed in its entirety. This disallowance of claim is
          without prejudice to Christine Hass filing an amended proof of
          claim on or before October 15, 2011, which clearly sets forth
          an alleged claim in this case.

                 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Alice Strömbom shall not
          appear in any proceeding in the Eastern District of California
          as an attorney on behalf of any other person without first
          being admitted to appear in this District. In any application
          to appear Ms. Strömbom shall expressly identify each time
          since January 1, 2010, that she has appeared in any case or
          proceeding in the Eastern District of California and state
          whether she was admitted to appear at that time, and provide
          a copy of this order with any application made to the United
          States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

                IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a timely amended proof of
          claim is filed, then Christine Hass must either personally

                              September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                    - Page 12 of 180 -
             sign in pro se and provide her address for service or is
             represented by counsel admitted to practice in the Eastern
             District of California. If represented by counsel admitted to
             appear in the Eastern District of California, such counsel
             shall also file a certificate in which Christine Hass provides
             her address for service of process pursuant to Federal Rule of
             Bankruptcy Procedure 7004. If counsel admitted to practice in
             the Eastern District of California is to receive service of
             the objection, the certificate signed by Christine Hass shall
             so expressly state.


6.   10-51508-E-13   JOSE/DOLLYE SOTELO                   MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
     JT-2            John A. Tosney                       8-10-11 [29]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
     supporting pleadings were served on Debtors, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
     parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
     August 10, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 41 days’ notice was provided.
     35 days’ notice is required.

     Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
     Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). The failure
     of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
     least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
     9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
     nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
     because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
     party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
     Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
     defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
     review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
     matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
     from the parties’ pleadings.

     The Motion to Confirm the Modified Plan is granted.           No appearance required.

             11 U.S.C. § 1329 permits a debtor to modify a plan after confirmation.
     The modified Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and is confirmed.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
             Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
             the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
             appearing,

                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 13 of 180 -
                    IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
             Chapter 13 Plan filed on August 10, 2011, is confirmed, and
             counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
             confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
             the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
             approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
             order to the court.


7.   10-53409-E-13   VALERIE JEFFERSON                    MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
     JRH-5           John R. Harrison                     JPMORGAN CHASE CALIFORNIA
                                                          CORPORATION
                                                          8-17-11 [55]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
     supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
     and Office of the United States Trustee on August 17, 2011. By the court’s
     calculation, 34 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

     Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
     respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
     14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
     9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
     nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The
     court has determined that oral argument will not be of assistance in resolving
     this matter. No oral argument will be presented and the court shall issue its
     ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

     The Motion to Value Collateral is denied without prejudice. No appearance
     required.

              The Motion to Value names the creditor JPMorgan Chase California
     Corporation FDBA Washington Mutual Bank. However, the Debtor has provided no
     evidence that JPMorgan Chase Bank California is now creditor in interest for
     Washington Mutual Bank. According to the FDIC’s website, a link to which is
     provided on the Court’s website, the successor institution to Washington Mutual
     Bank is JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association effective September 25, 2008.
     The lack of evidence that JPMorgan Chase California Corporation is the proper
     creditor as opposed to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association makes the
     Motion to Value deficient and therefore is denied without prejudice.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
             Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review


                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 14 of 180 -
             of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
             cause appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
             § 506(a) is denied without prejudice.


8.   09-46711-E-13   JOHN/TIFFANY CHANDLER                 MOTION TO CONFIRM PLAN
     MTM-3           Michael T. McEnroe                    8-10-11 [61]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
     supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors, parties
     requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on August
     10, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 41 days’ notice was provided. 35 days’
     notice is required.

     Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
     Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). The Trustee
     filed opposition. The court has determined that oral argument will not be of
     assistance in resolving this matter. No oral argument will be presented and
     the court shall issue its ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

     The Motion to Confirm the Modified Plan is denied and the plan is not
     confirmed. No appearance required.

             11 U.S.C. § 1329 permits a debtor to modify a plan after confirmation.
     Subsequent to the filing of this Motion, the Debtor filed a modified Plan on
     September 7, 2011.    While Debtor represents that this subsequent plan was
     merely to correct the court record (the plan filed with the motion was attached
     as an exhibit, not filed as a separate document), the September 7 Plan is
     materially different from the Plan offered with the motion:

             1.      Citimortgage is now listed as a Class 4 claim.
             2.      First National Bank of Omaha is now listed as a Class 6 claim.
             3.      Mercedes Benz is low listed in Section 4 as holding an
                     unexpired lease.
             4.      Section 7.03 now references a “SECOND Modified Plan payment” as
                     opposed to the “First Modified Plan payment.”

              The filing of a new plan is a de facto withdrawal of the pending Plan.
     The motion is denied as moot and the plan is not confirmed. If the Debtors
     believed that the amendments were one which the court could determine were not
     material and such a plan could be confirmed without further notice, then they
     should of filed a supplemental pleading identifying proposed amendments and
     served that on the other parties.

             The court also notes that the responses filed by the Debtors (1) do not
     disclose all of the proposed changes and that the responses were served only
     on the Chapter 13 Trustee and the Debtors, not any of the creditors or the
     United States Trustee. To the extent that the Debtors would have tried to

                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 15 of 180 -
     argue that creditors had actual notice of the changes and the court should
     ignore that a new plan as been filed, no actual notice of the proposed
     amendments was given to the creditors.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
             Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
             the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
             appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
             as moot and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.


9.   11-25912-E-13   MICHAEL/LISA BROWN                   MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
     JT-1            John A. Tosney                       8-10-11 [32]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Not Provided. The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
     supporting pleadings were served on Debtors, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
     parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
     August 10, 2011. However, the U.S. Department of Education was not properly
     noticed. By the court’s calculation, 41 days’ notice was provided. 35 days’
     notice is required.

             Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(j) and Local Rule 2002-1(a)
     require service on the United States Attorney when giving notice for an
     indebtedness to the United States for other than taxes. Here, Debtor discloses
     an indebtedness to the United States through the Department of Education.
     While attempted to notice the Department of Education, notice was set to and
     address that does not match the Roster of Governmental Agencies maintained by
     the Office of the Clerk and there is no evidence that United States Attorney
     was noticed at all.

     Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan was not properly set for hearing
     on the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-
     03, Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). The
     Trustee filed opposition. The court has determined that oral argument will not
     be of assistance in resolving this matter. No oral argument will be presented
     and the court shall issue its ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

     The Motion to Confirm the Modified Plan is denied.            No appearance required.

             11 U.S.C. § 1329 permits a debtor to modify a plan after confirmation.
     The Trustee opposes confirmation arguing that the Debtors are $195.60
     delinquent in plan payments, which represents less than one month of the
     $2,915.00 plan payment. This is strong evidence that the Debtors cannot afford

                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 16 of 180 -
      the plan payments or abide by the Plan and is cause to deny confirmation. 11
      U.S.C. §1325(a)(6).

              Further, the additional provisions of the plan provide for an after-
      the-fact increase in the monthly disbursements on the Class 1 arrearage claim
      of BAC Home Loans Servicing from $383.33 to $424.69.

              The modified Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a)
      and is not confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
              and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.


10.   11-26812-E-13   PHILIP/CYNTHIA SCANNELL              MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      TJW-3           Timothy J. Walsh                     WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.
                                                           8-1-11 [45]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      and Office of the United States Trustee on August 1, 2011. By the court’s
      calculation, 50 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 17 of 180 -
        The motion is accompanied by the Debtors’ declaration. The Debtors are
the owners of the subject real property commonly known as 1895 Regency Parkway,
Dixon, California. The Debtor seeks to value the property at a fair market
value of $300,000.00 as of the petition filing date.        As the owner, the
Debtors’ opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid.
701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173
(9th Cir. 2004).

        The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
$370,443.00. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s second deed of trust secures a loan with
a balance of approximately $34,995.00. Therefore, the respondent creditor’s
claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-collateralized.
The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount of $0.00, and
therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under the terms of any
confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending Corp. (In re
Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift (In re Lam),
211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant to Federal
Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
        Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
        of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
        cause appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
        § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
        secured by a second trust deed recorded against the real
        property commonly known as 1895 Regency Parkway, Dixon,
        California, is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the
        balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
        the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 18 of 180 -
11.   11-34712-E-13   ALEX VALENCIA AND ROSA               MOTION TO CONFIRM PLAN
      SCG-3           MEDINA-VALENCIA                      8-3-11 [32]
                      Sally C. Gonzales


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors, parties
      requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on August
      3, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 48 days’ notice was provided. 42 days’
      notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The failure
      of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Confirm the Amended Plan is granted.            No appearance required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. The amended Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
      is confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
              Chapter 13 Plan filed on August 3, 2011, is confirmed, and
              counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
              confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
              the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
              approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
              order to the court.



                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 19 of 180 -
12.   11-26813-E-13   WANDA FRIZZA                         MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      TJW-3           Timothy J. Walsh                     WELLS FARGO N.A.
                                                           8-1-11 [39]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      and Office of the United States Trustee on August 1, 2011. By the court’s
      calculation, 50 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtor’s declaration. The Debtor is
      the owner of the subject real property commonly known as 301 Grand Canyon Dr.,
      Vacaville, California. The Debtor seeks to value the property at a fair market
      value of $220,000.00 as of the petition filing date.        As the owner, the
      Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid.
      701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173
      (9th Cir. 2004).

              The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
      $253,258.00. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s second deed of trust secures a loan with
      a balance of approximately $55,900.00. Therefore, the respondent creditor’s
      claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-collateralized.
      The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount of $0.00, and
      therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under the terms of any
      confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending Corp. (In re
      Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift (In re Lam),
      211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant to Federal
      Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 20 of 180 -
                     The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
              Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
              of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
              cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
              secured by a second trust deed recorded against the real
              property commonly known as 301 Grand Canyon Dr., Vacaville,
              California, is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the
              balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
              the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.


13.   11-36613-E-13   KARL/MARIA HOCKMAN                   OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION OF
      NLE-1           Harry D. Roth                        PLAN BY DAVID CUSICK
                                                           8-18-11 [24]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(2) Motion.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtors and Debtors’ Attorney on August 18,
      2011. By the court’s calculation, 33 days’ notice was provided. 14 days’
      notice is required.

      Tentative Ruling: The Objection to the Plan was properly set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(2) and the procedure
      authorized by General Order 05-03, Paragraph 3(c). Consequently, the Debtor,
      the Trustee, the U.S. Trustee, and any other parties in interest were not
      required to file a written response or opposition to the motion. If any of
      these potential respondents appear at the hearing and offers opposition to the
      motion, the court will set a briefing schedule and a final hearing unless there
      is no need to develop the record further. If no opposition is offered at the
      hearing, the court will take up the merits of the motion. Below is the court’s
      tentative ruling, rendered on the assumption that there will be no opposition
      to the motion. Obviously, if there is opposition, the court may reconsider
      this tentative ruling.

      The court’s tentative decision is to sustain the Objection. Oral argument may
      be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing, where the parties shall
      address the issues identified in this tentative ruling and such other issues
      as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s resolution of the matter. If
      the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final ruling, the court will make the
      following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

              The Trustee opposes confirmation arguing that the Plan is not Debtors’
      best effort. Debtors are above the relevant median income and the Statement
      of Monthly Income (Form 22C) shows that Debtors’ monthly disposable income
      totals $645.27. The Trustee questions several deductions on Form 22C:

              1.      Debtors deduct $282.00 on line 47b. The Trustee asserts that
                      this deduction is improper but fails to state why.       The
                      objection as to this deduction is overruled.

                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 21 of 180 -
        2.     Debtors deduct $295.84 on line 43 for education expenses and
               $50.00 for additional food expenses but have not provided the
               Chapter 13 Trustee with the required documentation showing the
               expenses are reasonable and necessary. See 11 U.S.C.
               § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I), (IV).      The objection as to this
               deduction is sustained.

        3.     Debtors deduct $260.00 for charitable contributions on line 45.
               The Trustee objects on the basis that Debtors have not
               substantiated that they actually make the gifts. The objection
               as to this deduction is sustained.

        After accounting for the sustained objections, Debtors’ monthly
disposable income is $1,251.11. When applied to the relevant commitment period
of 60 months, unsecured creditors are entitled to at least $75,066.60.
Debtors, however, propose to pay a 20% dividend, or $37,496.41 over the life
of the Plan. Since the Plan does not fully pay all claims, it must devote all
of Debtors’ disposable income to pay unsecured creditors. 11 U.S.C.
§1325(b)(1). As Debtors’ Plan fails to do so, it cannot be confirmed.

        Debtors also propose to pay $745.45 per month on the Class 2 claim of
Wells Fargo secured by a 2007 Honda Civic. Debtors list the value of the
allowed claim as $21,816.00.    However, Debtors admitted at the Meeting of
Creditors that the required monthly payment is only $303.00. No explanation
is provided for the proposed higher payment.

        The Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a).      The
objection is sustained and the Plan is not confirmed.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Objection to the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
        Trustee having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that Objection to confirmation the Plan
        is sustained and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not
        confirmed.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 22 of 180 -
14.   11-37113-E-13   TEVIN/JESSICA TIANGTRONG             MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      PGM-1           Peter G. Macaluso                    USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK
                                                           8-22-11 [21]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent
      creditor, and Office of the United States Trustee on August 22, 2011. By the
      court’s calculation, 29 days’ notice was provided.       28 days’ notice is
      required.

      Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). USAA Federal Savings
      Bank filed opposition. If it appears at the hearing that disputed material
      factual issues remain to be resolved, a later evidentiary hearing will be set.
      Local Bankr. R. 9014-1(g).

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the
      scheduled hearing, where the parties shall address the issues identified in
      this tentative ruling and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate
      to the court’s resolution of the matter.    If the court’s tentative ruling
      becomes its final ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact
      and conclusions of law:

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtors’ declaration. The Debtors are
      the owners of the subject real property commonly known as 304 Armida Court,
      Lincoln, California. The Debtors seeks to value the property at a fair market
      value of $200,000.00 as of the petition filing date.       As the owners, the
      Debtors’ opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid.
      701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173
      (9th Cir. 2004).

              USAA Federal Savings Bank has filed an opposition to the Motion to
      Value requesting that the court’s order provide that its lien is retained in
      the full amount due under its loan in the event of either dismissal or
      conversion to any other Chapter under the United States Bankruptcy Code.
      Debtor’s plan should still expressly provide for treatment of the claim as that
      is an essential part of the so-called “lien stripping” process. See In re
      Frazier, 448 B.R. 803, 810 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2011).

               The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
      $234,936.00. USAA Federal Savings Bank’s second deed of trust secures a loan
      with a balance of approximately $71,794.00.         Therefore, the respondent
      creditor’s claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-
      collateralized. The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount
      of $0.00, and therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under
      the terms of any confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending
      Corp. (In re Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift
      (In re Lam), 211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant
      to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 23 of 180 -
        The court will not grant the further requested relief of USAA Federal
Savings Bank. The only matter before the court is to determine the value of
the secured claim, not to dictate plan terms or other operation of law. To the
extent that USAA Federal Savings Bank and the Debtors believe that additional
provisions in a plan are appropriate, then they may so agree to propose them
to the court as part of the confirmation process or USAA Federal Savings Bank
may file any objection to confirmation consistent with its obligations under
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
        Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
        of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
        cause appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
        § 506(a) is granted and the claim of USAA Federal Savings Bank
        secured by a second trust deed recorded against the real
        property commonly known as 304 Armida Court, Lincoln
        California, is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the
        balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
        the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 24 of 180 -
15.   06-21916-E-13   JESUS/ANNA GARCIA                    CONTINUED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
      CJY-2           Christian J. Younger                 DISCHARGE
                                                           7-25-11 [35]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on July 25, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
      other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
      court’s calculation, 57 days’ notice was provided.

      Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion. Cf.
      Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
      will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
      hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
      Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
      interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
      court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.              No appearance required.

              With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
      provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
      competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed
      on August 10, 2011, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R.
      Bankr. P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee
      was entered on September 3, 2011 (Dckt. 42). The entry of an order approving
      the final report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See
      In re Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

              The Debtors’ Declaration certifies that the Debtor:

              1. has completed the plan payments,
              2. has completed a financial management course and filed the
              certificate with the court,
              3. does not have any delinquent domestic support obligations,
              4. has not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7, 11, or 12
              during the four-year period prior to filing of this case or a
              discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-year period prior to
              filing of this case,
              5. is not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1), and
              6. is not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11 U.S.C.
              § 522(q)(1).

              There being no objection, the Debtor is entitled to a discharge.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 25 of 180 -
              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
              Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
              shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.



16.   07-24716-E-13   RICHARD RAMIREZ                      MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DISCHARGE
      SDB-3           W. Scott de Bie                      8-10-11 [65]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 10, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
      other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
      court’s calculation, 41 days’ notice was provided.

      Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion. Cf.
      Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
      will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
      hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
      Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
      interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
      court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.              No appearance required.

              With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
      provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
      competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed
      on July 14, 2011, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R.
      Bankr. P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee
      was entered on September 7, 2011 (Dckt. 69). The entry of an order approving
      the final report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See
      In re Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

              The Debtor’s Declaration certifies that the Debtor:

              1. has completed the plan payments,
              2. has completed a financial management course and filed the
              certificate with the court,
              3. does not have any delinquent domestic support obligations,


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 26 of 180 -
              4. has not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7, 11, or 12
              during the four-year period prior to filing of this case or a
              discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-year period prior to
              filing of this case,
              5. is not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1), and
              6. is not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11 U.S.C.
              § 522(q)(1).

              There being no objection, the Debtor is entitled to a discharge.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
              Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
              shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.


17.   11-36316-E-13   ZELMA BRAWNER                        OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION OF
      NLE-1           Chad M. Johnson                      PLAN BY DAVID CUSICK
                                                           8-18-11 [23]
            CASE DISMISSED 9-7-11


      Final Ruling: The case having previously been dismissed, the Objection to
      Confirmation is overruled as moot.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Objection to Confirmation having been presented to
              the court, the case having been previously dismissed, and upon
              review of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and
              good cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Objection to Confirmation is
              overruled as moot, the court having previously dismissed the
              bankruptcy case.




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 27 of 180 -
18.   11-20317-E-13   STEPHEN FOOS                         MOTION TO CONFIRM PLAN
      CK-4            Catherine King                       7-28-11 [62]

             CASE DISMISSED 9-16-11


      Final Ruling: The case having previously been dismissed, the Motion is denied
      as moot.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm having been presented to the
              court, the case having been previously dismissed, and upon
              review of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and
              good cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is denied as moot, the
              court having previously dismissed the bankruptcy case.


19.   11-36717-E-13   DANNY/TRACI PRIEBS                   MOTION TO CONFIRM PLAN
      NSV-2           Nima S. Vokshori                     8-3-11 [24]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtors, Debtors’ Attorney, Chapter 13
      Trustee, all creditors, parties requesting special notice, and Office of the
      United States Trustee on August 3, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 48 days’
      notice was provided. 42 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The Trustee
      filed opposition. The court has determined that oral argument will not be of
      assistance in resolving this matter. No oral argument will be presented and
      the court shall issue its ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

      The Motion to Confirm is denied and the Plan is not confirmed.         No appearance
      required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor          to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. Subsequent to the filing of          this Motion, the Debtor filed a
      second amended Plan on September 8, 2011.          The filing of a new plan is a de
      facto withdrawal of the pending Plan. The          motion is denied as moot and the
      plan is not confirmed.




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 28 of 180 -
      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
              as moot and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.


20.   11-30120-E-13   ROBERTO/JOCELYN MONTEZ               CONTINUED MOTION TO CONFIRM
      HAD-2           Hermin A. Dowe                       PLAN
                                                           6-23-11 [26]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors, parties
      requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on July 14,
      2011. By the court’s calculation, 40 days’ notice was provided. 42 days’
      notice is required.

      Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The Trustee
      having filed an opposition, the court will address the merits of the motion at
      the hearing.   If it appears at the hearing that disputed material factual
      issues remain to be resolved, a later evidentiary hearing will be set. Local
      Bankr. R. 9014-1(g).

      The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Confirm the Amended
      Plan. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing,
      where the parties shall address the issues identified in this tentative ruling
      and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s
      resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final
      ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and conclusions of
      law:

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. The Trustee opposes confirmation on the basis that the Plan is
      not Debtors’ best effort. The Statement of Monthly Income (Form 22C) states
      that Debtors’ household consists of three people while Schedule I lists no
      dependents. The apparent over-reporting of dependents renders the calculations
      on Form 22C unreliable. Moreover, Form 22C includes expenses for disability
      insurance and retirement deductions which are not included on Schedules I and
      J. Since Debtors no longer have these expenses, their disposable income may



                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 29 of 180 -
be increased by the amounts no longer expended. See Hamilton v. Lanning, 560
U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2464, 2471, 177 L. Ed. 2d 23, 32-33 (2010).

        After adjusting for the expenses, Debtors’ disposable income totals
$1,329.00.   When applied to the relevant commitment period of 60 months,
unsecured creditors are entitled to at least $79,740.00. Debtors, however,
propose to pay a 10% dividend, or $19,712.33 over the life of the Plan. Since
the Plan does not fully pay all claims, it must devote all of Debtors’
disposable income to pay unsecured creditors. 11 U.S.C. §1325(b)(1).       As
Debtors’ Plan fails to do so, it cannot be confirmed.

        Additionally, Schedule J double reports expenses for real property
insurance (line 1 and line 11a).     Further Debtors report home maintenance
expenses of $580.00 per month and food expenses of $850.00 per month for their
two-person household. Debtors have not shown how these expenses are reasonably
necessary.

        The court also notes that the “Declaration” of the Debtors filed in
support of the Motion offers no testimony as to any facts, but merely provides
the court with legal and factual conclusions based on information and belief.
The Debtors can, and must, provide actual testimony for which the court can
then make findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court cannot merely
adopt the ultimate legal conclusions determined by witnesses or merely argued
by counsel.

        On August 22, 2011, the day prior to the original hearing on this
Motion, the Debtors filed amended Schedules I and J. These amendments would
indicate that the original Schedules I and J filed in April 2011 were
inaccurate and had to be corrected. These amended schedules do not provide
evidence as to the income and expenses of the Debtors in connection with
confirming this plan.

         The court shall consider the comments from the Chapter 13 Trustee, U.S.
Trustee, counsel for the Debtors, and other parties in interest concerning the
inconsistencies in the pleadings under penalty of perjury filed by the Debtors
in this case. Counsel for the Debtors shall address how the Debtors could make
such significant misstatements of their finances as of the commencement of
their case if they reviewed the Schedules before signing them under penalty of
perjury.

         While the court continued the hearing, no further documents have been
filed.

        The amended Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
is not confirmed.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

         Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
         Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
         Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of

                             September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                   - Page 30 of 180 -
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
              and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.


21.   10-47921-E-13   SEAN/HEATHER RHODES                  MOTION TO CONFIRM PLAN
      BSJ-8           Brandon Scott Johnston               8-5-11 [87]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtors, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
      parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      August 5, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 46 days’ notice was provided. 42
      days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The failure
      of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Confirm the Amended Plan is granted.            No appearance required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. The amended Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
      is confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
              Chapter 13 Plan filed on August 5, 2011, is confirmed, and


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 31 of 180 -
              counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
              confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
              the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
              approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
              order to the court.


22.   10-47921-E-13   SEAN/HEATHER RHODES                  MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      BSJ-9           Brandon Scott Johnston               DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
                                                           COMPANY
                                                           8-5-11 [90]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtors, Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent
      creditor, other interested parties, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      August 8, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 43 days’ notice was provided. 28
      days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtor’s declaration. The Debtor is
      the owner of the subject real property commonly known as 215 Diamond Oaks Road,
      Roseville, California. The Debtor seeks to value the property at a fair market
      value of $277,500.00 as of the petition filing date.        As the owner, the
      Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid.
      701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173
      (9th Cir. 2004).

              The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
      $381,601.16.   Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s second deed of trust
      secures a loan with a balance of approximately $91,544.00. Therefore, the
      respondent creditor’s claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely
      under-collateralized. The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the
      amount of $0.00, and therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim
      under the terms of any confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 32 of 180 -
      Lending Corp. (In re Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors
      Thrift (In re Lam), 211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion
      pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a)
      is granted.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
              Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
              of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
              cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Deutsche Bank National
              Trust Company’s secured by a second trust deed recorded
              against the real property commonly known as 215 Diamond Oaks
              Road, Roseville, California, is determined to have a value of
              $0.00, and the balance of the claim is to be paid as an
              unsecured claim under the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.


23.   10-50921-E-13   DAVID ROURKE AND DONNA               MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      CLH-3           WESTOVER-ROURKE                      BANK OF AMERICA
                      Cindy Lee Hill                       8-17-11 [56]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      and Office of the United States Trustee on August 17, 2011. By the court’s
      calculation, 34 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 33 of 180 -
        The motion is accompanied by the Debtors’ declaration. The Debtors are
the owners of the subject real property commonly known as 411 4th St. College
City, California. The Debtors seek to value the property at a fair market
value of $161,000.00 as of the petition filing date.        As the owner, the
Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid.
701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173
(9th Cir. 2004).

        The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
$272,184.74. Bank of America Home Loan Servicing LP’s second deed of trust
secures a loan with a balance of approximately $49,273.47. Therefore, the
respondent creditor’s claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely
under-collateralized. The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the
amount of $0.00, and therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim
under the terms of any confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB
Lending Corp. (In re Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors
Thrift (In re Lam), 211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion
pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a)
is granted.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
        Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
        of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
        cause appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
        § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Bank of America Home Loan
        Servicing secured by a second trust deed recorded against the
        real property commonly known as 411 4th St, College City,
        California, is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the
        balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
        the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 34 of 180 -
24.   11-30321-E-13   KEITH TIGERT                         MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      TJW-2           Timothy J. Walsh                     BANK OF AMERICA N.A.
                                                           8-1-11 [31]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      and Office of the United States Trustee on August 1, 2011. By the court’s
      calculation, 50 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtor’s declaration. The Debtor is
      the owner of the subject real property commonly known as 201 Larkspur Drive,
      Vacaville, California. The Debtor seeks to value the property at a fair market
      value of $220,000.00 as of the petition filing date.        As the owner, the
      Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid.
      701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173
      (9th Cir. 2004).

              The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
      $340,000.00. Bank of America, N.A.’s second deed of trust secures a loan with
      a balance of approximately $58,472.00. Therefore, the respondent creditor’s
      claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-collateralized.
      The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount of $0.00, and
      therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under the terms of any
      confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending Corp. (In re
      Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift (In re Lam),
      211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant to Federal
      Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 35 of 180 -
                     The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
              Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
              of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
              cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Bank of America, N.A.’s
              secured by a second trust deed recorded against the real
              property commonly known as 201 Larkspur Drive, Vacaville,
              California, is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the
              balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
              the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.


25.   11-32721-E-13   RAFAEL VEGA AND BERTHA               MOTION TO CONFIRM PLAN
      TOG-4           ZARAGOZA                             8-5-11 [28]
                      Thomas O. Gillis


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion – Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided - Corrected by Appearance of Creditor. The Proof of
      Service filed on June 15, 2011, states that the Motion and supporting pleadings
      were served on Debtors, Debtor’s Attorney, Chapter 13 Trustee, other parties
      in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. But the Internal Revenue
      Service was not served at the addresses required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 2002-
      1. As the United States appeared to oppose the motion, the court waives the
      defect. By the court’s calculation, 48 days’ notice was provided.

      Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The Trustee
      having filed an opposition, the court will address the merits of the motion.

      The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Confirm the Amended
      Plan. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing,
      where the parties shall address the issues identified in this tentative ruling
      and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s
      resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final
      ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and conclusions of
      law:

              The Trustee and the United States oppose confirmation arguing that the
      Debtors’ plan precariously depends on payment of an undetermined lump-sum
      before Month 60. According to the proposed plan, Debtors will pay $445.00 per
      month until Month 55, at which point Debtors will attempt to obtain a loan or
      sell their house to satisfy the remainder of their debts. Trustee and the
      United States are concerned that Debtors will not be able to complete their
      plan if they are unable to obtain the loan or sell the house. Furthermore,
      Debtors’ Schedule J does not provide for real estate taxes or property
      insurance. This is strong evidence that the Debtors cannot afford the plan
      payments or abide by the Plan and is cause to deny confirmation. 11 U.S.C.
      § 1325(a)(6).


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 36 of 180 -
        The Debtors’ Plan provides for the following claims:

Class 1, Long Term Secured:        None.

Class 2, Secured, Modified:        IRS, $48,000, at 4%, with a $884 dividend.

Class 3, Secured, Surrender:       None

Class 4, Non-Default, Direct:      None

Class 5, Unsecured, Priority:      FTB, $30,000

Class 6, Unsecured, Special:       None

Class 7, Unsecured, General:      0% on projected $0.00 general unsecured claims.

        The only proof of claim filed in this case as of July 31, 2011, was the
IRS claim for $47,961.02. POC No. 1. A review of the Debtors’ Schedules and
Statement of Financial Affairs filed in this case discloses the following
information:

Schedule A – Real Property

        Single Family Home in Corning, California, with a value of $90,000.00
and no secured claims.

Schedule B – Personal Property

        Schedule B, no significant personal property assets, other than a 2004
Ford Expedition (160k miles) and a 1997 Chevy Silverado (250k miles). Personal
property assets total $10,115.

Schedule D – Secured Claims

        No creditors holding secured claims.

Schedule E - Priority Claims

        The Debtors list both the Internal Revenue Service and the California
Franchise Tax Board of priority claims for taxes of $49,464 and $29,890,
respectively. The IRS taxes are identified for the 2007 tax year and the FTB
taxes for the 2008 tax year.

Schedule F – General Unsecured Claims

        None.

Schedule I – Income

        The Debtors list their combined income to be $1,577, of which $600.00
is identified a “Help From Family.” Mr. Vega is listed as being unemployed and
receiving a monthly SSI payment.

Schedule J – Expenses

                               September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                     - Page 37 of 180 -
        The Debtors list their expenses as being $1,132 a month. As stated by
the Trustee, no provision is made in the budget for property insurance or
taxes.

Statement of Financial Affairs

        In response to Question 1, the Debtor (Mr. Vega) states that he
received $21,800 in wages in 2010 and $20,000 wages in 2009. No income is
listed for the joint debtor.     The Debtor also lists receiving $4,500 of
unemployment benefits/seasonal job/SSI in 2011 and $13,796 in 2010.

        The declaration filed in support of the Motion does not provide the
court with any evidence as to how these Debtors have ended up with only two
creditors, the IRS and FTB for substantial income tax liabilities.          The
financial information provide clearly demonstrates that the Debtors do not have
the ability to make the $445.00. They do not have the monthly income, and
almost 50% of their monthly income is dependant upon an unidentified source of
“family help.”

        The “Plan” also raises issues as to whether it complies with the
Bankruptcy Code and is in good faith. Though $445.00 a month is to be paid
into the Plan, there is no provision for paying creditors. It is insufficient
to pay the $884.00 a month dividend to the IRS. Nobody, other than Debtors’
counsel, will be paid from these monies.

        This “Plan” appears merely to be one in which the Debtors will live in
their home rent free, mortgage free, insurance free, and property tax free for
60 months under the protection of the automatic stay. No creditors will be
paid. After reaping 60 months of free appreciation, the Debtors will then
either sell the property or obtain a loan. The Debtors offer no evidence of
how they intend to qualify for a loan. At best, after living in bankruptcy and
not paying creditors for five years, the Debtors will liquidate the property
and hopefully reap five years of no-cost gain.

        The amended Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
is not confirmed.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
        Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
        and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 38 of 180 -
26.   06-20922-E-13   JUSTIN/LARISSA KILLIAN               MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DISCHARGE
      SL-2            Steele Lanphier                      8-23-11 [68]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on July 12, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
      other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
      court’s calculation, 42 days’ notice was provided.

      Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion. Cf.
      Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
      will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
      hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
      Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
      interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
      court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.              No appearance required.

              With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
      provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
      competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed
      on August 16, 2011, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R.
      Bankr. P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee
      was entered on September 7, 2011 (Dckt. 66). The entry of an order approving
      the final report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See
      In re Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

              The Debtor’s Declaration certifies that the Debtor:

              1. has completed the plan payments,
              2. has completed a financial management course and filed the
              certificate with the court,
              3. does not have any delinquent domestic support obligations,
              4. has not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7, 11, or 12
              during the four-year period prior to filing of this case or a
              discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-year period prior to
              filing of this case,
              5. is not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1), and
              6. is not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11 U.S.C.
              § 522(q)(1).

      There being no objection, the Debtor is entitled to a discharge.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:



                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 39 of 180 -
              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
              Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
              shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.


27.   11-25322-E-13   DAVID/ROSAURA JENSON                  CONTINUED MOTION TO CONFIRM
      EJS-3           Eric John Schwab                      PLAN
                                                            7-19-11 [56]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtors, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
      parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      July 19, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 42 days’ notice was provided. 42
      days’ notice is required.

      Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The Trustee
      having filed an opposition, the court will address the merits of the motion at
      the hearing.   If it appears at the hearing that disputed material factual
      issues remain to be resolved, a later evidentiary hearing will be set. Local
      Bankr. R. 9014-1(g).

      The court’s tentative decision is to grant the Motion to Confirm the Amended
      Plan. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing,
      where the parties shall address the issues identified in this tentative ruling
      and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s
      resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final
      ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and conclusions of
      law:

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. The Chapter 13 Trustee opposes confirmation on the basis that
      Debtors cannot afford the proposed plan payments. In support of confirmation,
      Debtors offer 4 months of profit and loss statements from their business. The
      statements show that Debtors’ business income is an average of $1,612.63 less
      than reported on Schedule I while business expenses are averaging $5,240.90
      more than reported on Schedule J.

               Debtors filed a supplemental declaration stating that they have reduced
      the costs of goods sold in their store, shutdown the video portion of their
      operation, reduced advertising expenses by nearly 30%, laid-off two employees,
      reduced the hours of their remaining employees, and reduced supplies purchased
      by the business. Based on historical sales patterns, Debtors also expect sales

                                   September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                         - Page 40 of 180 -
to increase in the coming months because of holiday related purchases.
Debtors’ most recent profit and loss statement (through August 2011, Dckt. 80)
shows Debtors have net income of $11,678.29 over the first 8 months of the
year, a $27,494.68 swing over the same period a year prior.

        The Debtors’ response is one that is based on a projection of future
events built on changes in operation since the case was filed. Whether it is
accurate will be proven by performance under the plan.

        Debtors have demonstrated their ability to fund the plan. The amended
Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and is confirmed.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
        Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
        Chapter 13 Plan filed on July 19, 2011, is confirmed, and
        counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
        confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
        the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
        approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
        order to the court.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 41 of 180 -
28.   11-31622-E-13   HARLEY/HILLARY HARTWELL              MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      SAK-2           Stephen A. Koonce                    BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP
                                                           8-16-11 [21]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Not Provided. The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, BAC Home Loans
      Servicing, LP, and Office of the United States Trustee on August 16, 2011.
      However, Bank of America, N.A., the actual party in interest, was not properly
      served. By the court’s calculation, 35 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’
      notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The
      court has determined that oral argument will not be of assistance in resolving
      this matter. No oral argument will be presented and the court shall issue its
      ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is denied without prejudice. No appearance
      required.

              The court takes judicial notice that no later than July 1, 2011, BAC
      Home Loans Servicing, LP merged with Bank of America, N.A. Fed. R. Evid. 201.
      Therefore, based on Debtor’s representations, Bank of America, N.A. is the
      proper entity that the motion should be served upon. As there is no evidence
      that Bank of America, N.A., an FDIC insured depository institution, was served
      as required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004(h), the motion is
      denied. FN.1.

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      FN.1.    This is based on pleadings filed in other cases in which Bank of
      America, N.A. has provided the court with a certificate from the Texas
      Secretary of State which provides that the entity known as BAC Home Loans
      Servicing, LP, a Texas limited partnership, was merged into Bank of America,
      N.A. Presumably counsel for the Debtors can obtain that information from the
      Texas Secretary of State’s website or office and confirm the correct entity to
      serve for this claim.
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
              Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 42 of 180 -
              of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel and good
              cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
              506(a) is denied without prejudice.


29.   09-44124-E-13   DANIEL/DIANNE HILL                   MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
      MAA-6           Jin Kim                              8-4-11 [75]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtors, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
      parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      August 4, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 47 days’ notice was provided. 42
      days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The failure
      of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Confirm the Amended Plan is granted.            No appearance required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. The amended Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
      is confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
              Chapter 13 Plan filed on August 4, 2011, is confirmed, and


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 43 of 180 -
              counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
              confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
              the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
              approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
              order to the court.


30.   10-44125-E-13   MICHELE GONZALES                     MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
      GG-3            Gerald B. Glazer                     8-5-11 [33]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors, parties
      requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on August
      5, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 46 days’ notice was provided. 42 days’
      notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The failure
      of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Confirm the Amended Plan is granted.            No appearance required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. The amended Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
      is confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
              Chapter 13 Plan filed on June 16, 2011, is confirmed, and
              counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order

                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 44 of 180 -
              confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
              the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
              approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
              order to the court.


31.   07-25126-E-13    SHAUN/ALICE ARCHER                   MOTION FOR COMPENSATION FOR
      GW-4             Gerald L. White                      GERALD L. WHITE, DEBTOR'S
                                                            ATTORNEY(S), FEE: $1563.00,
                                                            EXPENSES: $0.00.
                                                            8-23-11 [149]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 30, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Debtor’s
      Attorney, Chapter 7 Trustee, other parties in interest, and Office of the
      United States Trustee.   By the court’s calculation, 21 days’ notice was
      provided.

      Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Compensation has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-
      1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion.       Cf.
      Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).

      The First Interim Application for Fees is denied without prejudice.       Oral
      argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing, where the
      parties shall address the issues identified in this tentative ruling and such
      other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s resolution of the
      matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final ruling, the court
      will make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

      FEES REQUESTED

              Gerald L. White, Counsel for the debtors, makes a motion for approval
      of Debtors’ attorney fees and/or costs in this case. The period for which the
      fees are requested is May 19, 2008, through July 13, 2011. This is an “opt-
      out” case, one in which counsel for the debtor does not accept fees within the
      pre-determined reasonable amount for the average Chapter 13 case.

              Counsel states that the total attorney fees and costs already approved
      in the case are $7,266.00. He further discloses that he is holding $1,510.00
      of the Debtors’ assets in his trust account, which he asserts are for post-
      petition attorneys’ fees and costs.

              In the Motion Counsel seeks an additional $1,512.50 of post-petition
      fees and $50.50 of post-petition costs in this case. Counsel currently has
      $1,510.00 in his trust account for the allowed fees and costs in this case.




                                   September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                         - Page 45 of 180 -
Description of Services for Which Fees Are Requested

        1.   Communicate with Debtors and Trustee to prepare and serve the
        motion to modify the plan and the confirmation order to obtain
        confirmation of the amended plan, for which 5.20 hours has been
        billed.

        2.   Review and respond to correspondence from the Court,
        Debtors, creditors and the trustee to manage the case and
        advise Debtors since the original plan was confirmed, for
        which .85 hours has been billed.

        3. Postage fee paid to serve notice of motion to modify plan,
        for which $50.50 in fees are requested to be approved.

These identified fees total the $1,563.00 requested.

REVIEW OF CASE

        In this bankruptcy case the Debtors owned one piece of real property,
their residence. The property secured three different loans, Countrywide Bank
holding the first and second deed of trust and Green Tree, which held third
deed of trust against the property. Schedule B discloses that these Debtors
have substantial assets for which various exemptions needed to be correctly
claimed to protect the Debtors’ interests.

        Has identified the following post-petition payments made from property
of the estate (post-petition earnings) to counsel for the Debtor. It has been
argued to the court that such payments are proper under the plan as confirmed
and the computation of the Debtors’ projected disposable income. In Schedule
J, Dckt. 1, the Debtors’ Monthly Net Income is stated under penalty of perjury
to be $1,490.18. The expenses in reaching this monthly number include a post-
petition payment of $25.00 to be made to Debtors’ counsel to fund a post-
petition attorneys’ fee retainer. The Debtors’ confirmed plan in this case
provides for payment of $1,490.00 a month for 48 months. This is consistent
with the Debtors’ statements under penalty of perjury that they had only
$1,490.18 a month in Monthly Net Income which was then relied upon by the
Trustee, creditors, U.S. Trustee, other parties in interest, and the court in
confirming the plan.

        From reviewing the disclosures of post-petition payments made by the
Debtors to their counsel, it is clearly demonstrated that the financial
information in Schedule J under penalty of perjury and relied upon by the court
and the parties in interest in this case is false. Though the Debtors state
that only $25.00 a month would go to the post-petition retainer to be paid
counsel, significantly more was actually paid.

        A chart of payments as set forth in the disclosures of post-petition
Payments received by counsel for the Debtors reveals that the Debtors have
significantly more monthly disposable income.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 46 of 180 -
Date of Post-Petition   Amount of Post-Petition            Computation of
Payment Disclosure By   Payment Disclosed and Date         Amount Stated Under
Attorney for the        of Payment                         Penalty of Perjury
Debtors                                                    on Schedule J for
                                                           Paid Attorney Post-
                                                           Petition computed at
                                                           at $25.00 a month
                                                           for the period in
                                                           which the payment
                                                           was received and
                                                           number of months in
                                                           the period.
July 30, 2007           $750.00                            $25.00
Attorney Disclosure,    Paid on July 19, 2007              One Month
Dckt. 18.
August 24, 2007         $1,500.00                          $25.00
Attorney Disclosure     Paid on August 23, 2007            One Month
Dckt. 29
January 16, 2008        $250.00                            $75.00
Attorney Disclosure     Paid on January 15, 2008           Five Months
Dckt. 55
February 20, 2008       $250.00                            $25.00
Attorney Disclosure     Paid on February 7, 2008           One Month
Dckt. 59
March 24, 2008          $238.50                            $25.00
Attorney Disclosure     Paid on March 24, 2008             One Month
Dckt. 67
June 20, 2008           $200.00                            $75.00
Attorney Disclosure     Total of Payment Received          Three Months
Dckt. 86                on June 5 and June 20,
                        2008
July 30, 2008           $100.00                            $25.00
Attorney Disclosure     Paid on July 15, 2008              One Month
Dckt. 91
September 9, 2008       $100.00                            $25.00
Attorney Disclosure     Paid on August 25, 2008.           One Month
Dckt. 93
November 4, 2008        $100.00                            $50.00
Attorney Disclosure     Paid on October 27, 2008           Two Months
Dckt.95
November 17, 2008       $100.00                            $25.00
Attorney Disclosure     Paid on November 17, 2008          One Month
Dckt. 98




                         September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                               - Page 47 of 180 -
        During the period from July 2007 (commencement of this case) through
the November 2008 payment (17 months), counsel for the Debtors received
$3,588.00 in post-petition payments. Based on the Debtors’ statements under
penalty of perjury on Schedule J, there should have been only $425.00. This
indicates that the Debtors actually had at least an additional $186.00 a month
in projected disposable income. ($3,588.00 in post-petition monies to pay
attorney, minus the $425.00 of $25.00 a month payments disclosed = $3,163.00
of undisclosed disposable income, which averages $186.00 a month over the 17
months period.) For the 48 months plan, this equals an additional $8,928.00
which should be paid through the plan. The confirmed plan provides for a 0.00%
distribution to creditors holding general unsecured claims, so this additional
amount is clearly significant. Even if not a great amount in the aggregate,
the Debtors must be truthful when making statements under penalty of perjury.

        Before approving any additional fees in this case several issues must
be addressed. The Debtors must clarify where they had additional post-petition
earnings to make these payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee must address whether
the plan has been properly confirmed and if any problems exist with respect to
the monies paid in excess of the amounts set forth in Schedule J. The U.S.
Trustee and other parties in interest should also address whether this
information, now that it has been aggregated, raises any other issues in the
case.

        The fees are not approved and the Motion is denied without prejudice.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Compensation filed by Counsel, having
        been presented to the court, and upon review of the pleadings,
        evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for the allowance of fees
        and costs is denied without prejudice.

               IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gerald L. White shall retain
        all post-petition payments he has received from or for the
        benefit of the Debtors in this case in his trust account, and
        no such monies shall be disbursed except upon further order of
        this court.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 48 of 180 -
32.   11-22728-E-13   SHANNON/DANIEL HERNANDEZ             MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      BB-10           Bonnie Baker                         CITIFINANCIAL AUTO CORPORATION
                                                           8-17-11 [101]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      and Office of the United States Trustee on August 17, 2011. By the court’s
      calculation, 34 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $10,550.00. The Motion to modify the interest rate is denied
      without prejudice. No appearance required.

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtor’s declaration. The Debtor is
      the owner of a 2002 Cadillac Escalade. The Debtor seeks to value the property
      at a replacement value of $10,550.00 as of the petition filing date. As the
      owner, the Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed.
      R. Evid. 701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d
      1165, 1173 (9th Cir. 2004).

              The lien on the vehicle’s title secures a purchase-money loan incurred
      in 2008, more than 910 days prior to filing of the petition, with a balance of
      approximately $18,947.25. Therefore, the respondent creditor’s claim secured
      by a lien on the vehicle’s title is under-collateralized.      The creditor’s
      secured claim is determined to be in the amount of $10,550.00. See 11 U.S.C.
      § 506(a).    The valuation motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
      Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

              The Debtors’ have also requested a reduction in the interest rate on
      the load held by Citifinancial Auto Corporation. Such a request is not proper
      in a Motion to Value Collateral, but rather is an issue for plan confirmation.
      See 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5) (discussing treatment of secured claims in Chapter
      13 plans).

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 49 of 180 -
              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
              Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
              of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
              cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Citifinancial Auto
              Corporation secured by a vehicle identified as a 2002 Cadillac
              Escalade, is determined to have a value of $10,550.00, and the
              balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
              the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.


33.   11-22728-E-13   SHANNON/DANIEL HERNANDEZ             MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF JP
      BB-9            Bonnie Baker                         MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., CHASE
                                                           AUTO FINANCE
                                                           8-17-11 [96]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      other interested parties and Office of the United States Trustee on August 18,
      2011. By the court’s calculation, 33 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’
      notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $16,120.00. The Motion to modify the interest rate is denied
      without prejudice. No appearance required.

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtor’s declaration. The Debtor is
      the owner of a 2007 Honda Accord EX-L. The Debtor seeks to value the property
      at a replacement value of $16,120.00 as of the petition filing date. As the
      owner, the Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed.



                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 50 of 180 -
R. Evid. 701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d
1165, 1173 (9th Cir. 2004).

        The lien on the vehicle’s title secures a purchase-money loan incurred
in 2007, more than 910 days prior to filing of the petition, with a balance of
approximately $23,560.00. Therefore, the respondent creditor’s claim secured
by a lien on the vehicle’s title is under-collateralized.      The creditor’s
secured claim is determined to be in the amount of $16,120.00. See 11 U.S.C.
§ 506(a).    The valuation motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

        The Debtors’ have also requested a reduction in the interest rate on
the load held by Citifinancial Auto Corporation. Such a request is not proper
in a Motion to Value Collateral, but rather is an issue for plan confirmation.
See 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5) (discussing treatment of secured claims in Chapter
13 plans).

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
        Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
        of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
        cause appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
        § 506(a) is granted and the claim of JP Morgan Chase Bank,
        N.A. secured by a vehicle identified as a 2007 Honda Accord
        EX-L, is determined to have a value of $16,120.00, and the
        balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
        the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 51 of 180 -
34.   07-30633-E-13   LEWIS ENDICOTT AND                   MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DISCHARGE
      SDB-2           DOROTHY FREE-ENDICOTT                8-12-11 [46]
                      W. Scott de Bie


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on July 12, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
      other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
      court’s calculation, 39 days’ notice was provided.

      Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion. Cf.
      Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
      will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
      hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
      Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
      interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
      court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.              No appearance required.

              With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
      provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
      competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed
      on August 16, 2011, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R.
      Bankr. P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee
      was entered on September 7, 2011 (Dckt. 51). The entry of an order approving
      the final report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See
      In re Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

              The Debtor’s Declaration certifies that the Debtor:

              1. has completed the plan payments,
              2. has completed a financial management course and filed the
              certificate with the court,
              3. does not have any delinquent domestic support obligations,
              4. has not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7, 11, or 12
              during the four-year period prior to filing of this case or a
              discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-year period prior to
              filing of this case,
              5. is not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1), and
              6. is not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11 U.S.C.
              § 522(q)(1).

      There being no objection, the Debtor is entitled to a discharge.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 52 of 180 -
                 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
                 Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                        The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
                 Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
                 the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
                 appearing,

                        IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
                 shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.


35.   11-32334-E-13     GINO ISOLA                            CONTINUED OBJECTION TO
      RCO-1             D. Randall Ensminger                  CONFIRMATION OF PLAN BY WELLS
                                                              FARGO BANK, N.A.
                                                              7-6-11 [19]
      Thru #36

      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(2) Motion.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on July 6, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Debtor’s
      Attorney, Chapter 13 Trustee, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
      court’s calculation, 20 days’ notice was provided.

      Tentative Ruling: The Objection to the Plan was set for hearing on the notice
      required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(2) and the procedure authorized by
      General Order 05-03, Paragraph 3(c). Consequently, the Debtor, the Trustee,
      the U.S. Trustee, and any other parties in interest were not required to file
      a written response or opposition to the motion. Opposition was offered at the
      initial hearing and the court continued this matter for further briefing. No
      further briefing was offered.

      The court’s tentative decision is to sustain the Objection. Oral argument may
      be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing, where the parties shall
      address the issues identified in this tentative ruling and such other issues
      as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s resolution of the matter. If
      the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final ruling, the court will make the
      following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

              Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. opposes confirmation of the Plan on the basis
      that it does not comply with § 1325(a). Counsel for this Debtor has been
      working with creditors in several cases to structure plan terms to build in
      negotiation of a loan modification as part of a confirmable plan. No proposed
      language has been filed in this case.

              First, 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5) requires that the plan provide for all
      allowed secured claims. The Plan lists Wells Fargo as a Class 1 Creditor, with
      Monthly Contract Installments of $1,054.00 and Pre-petition Arrears of
      $44,000.00.    Wells Fargo contends that the current Monthly Contract
      Installments are in fact $1,359.95 and Pre-petition Arrears are $48,489.12.
      Proof of Claim Number 2, filed by Wells Fargo on June 15, supports these
      contentions.   Wells Fargo asserts that Debtor’s Plan is based on a loan
      modification Debtor has yet to receive.

                                     September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                           - Page 53 of 180 -
        In fact, Section 7.09 of Debtor’s Plan, Debtor asserts that “monthly
payment listed in Section 3.09 represents a projected payment under the pending
application to modify loan, and may not be the applicable payment once the
pending application to modify loan is approved or denied.” A plan cannot be
based on a hypothetical loan modification that may or may not take place. As
drafted, the Plan provides for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage as a Class 1 claim,
stating the incorrect amounts. The Plan does not provide for payment of Wells
Fargo‘s current claim, and Wells does not accept the plan. The Plan does not
meet the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5) and cannot be confirmed. FN.1.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
FN.1. If the plan is to either work out a loan modification with Wells Fargo
Bank so as to bring the loan current (to be a Class 4 Claim) or surrender the
property (Class 3 Claim), then special treatment for this claim should be
provided in Section VII of the Plan. Conceivably a plan could provide for
adequate protection payments to the creditor for a reasonable period of time
to negotiate and obtain approval of a loan modification, thereby making it a
Class 4 claim, and if no approval of a loan modification is timely obtained,
the claim would be deemed a Class 3 claim and the automatic stay terminated.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

        Second, 11 U.S.C. § 1352(a)(6) requires that the debtor be able to make
all payments under the plan and comply with the plan. Wells Fargo asserts that
Debtor may not be able to comply with the plan, because it is unclear whether
Debtor has sufficient disposable income to make the Plan payments. Debtor’s
plan lists a Monthly Net Income from line 20c of Schedule J as $1,261.26. If
the monthly payments to Wells Fargo due under the Note and Deed of Trust do in
fact total $1,359.95, then Debtor may not be able to make all payments under
the plan. Debtor must resolve the discrepancy in Monthly Contract Installments
and Propitiation Arrears before this plan can be confirmed.

        Third, 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) requires that the Plan be proposed in
good faith. Wells Fargo argues that the plan is not filed in good faith,
because Debtor’s plan relies on a loan modification which Debtor has yet to
receive. A plan cannot be proposed in good faith based fictional payments from
a hypothetical loan modification. However, a plan may include a provision for
the alternatives of a loan modification or surrender of the collateral. Merely
because the Debtors seek a loan modification and build a plan term around such
potential modification is not bad faith.

        Finally, 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1) requires that the Plan comply with all
other provisions within Chapter 13, including 11 U.S.C. § 1322.       Under 11
U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) the Plan may not modify a claim secured by the debtor’s
principal residence, and under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(5) it must provide for
curing of any default on secured claims coming due after the plan. Wells Fargo
argues the Plan does not comply with the provisions of Chapter 13 because it
attempts to modify Wells Fargo’s claim, which is secured by Debtor’s personal
residence. Furthermore, Wells Fargo asserts that the Plan fails to provide for
the cure of the existing default on Creditor’s secured claim during the life
of the plan.

        If the court were to allow the Class 1 Claim as stated by the Debtors,
this part of the objection would have merit. The Debtors cannot effect a non-
consentual modification through plan confirmation.      However, there is no

                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 54 of 180 -
      indication from the evidence presented that Debtor is attempting to modify
      Creditor’s rights other than through a mutual loan modification. However,
      given that a loan modification has not yet been completed, it does not appear
      that the Plan provides for the curing of Debtor’s default under the current
      loan. The Plan fails to meet the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(5) and
      cannot be confirmed.

              The Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§1322 and 1325(a).            The
      objection is sustained and the Plan is not confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

               Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
               Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                      The Objection to the Chapter 13 Plan filed by Wells
               Fargo having been presented to the court, and upon review of
               the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
               appearing,

                      IT IS ORDERED that Objection to confirmation the Plan
               is sustained and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not
               confirmed.


36.   11-32334-E-13   GINO ISOLA                            CONTINUED OBJECTION TO
      TSB-1           D. Randall Ensminger                  CONFIRMATION OF PLAN
                                                            6-29-11 [15]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(2) Motion.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on June 29, 2010, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Debtor and Debtor’s
      Attorney. By the court’s calculation, 27 days’ notice was provided.

      Tentative Ruling: The Objection to the Plan was properly set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(2) and the procedure
      authorized by General Order 05-03, Paragraph 3(c). Consequently, the Debtor,
      the Trustee, the U.S. Trustee, and any other parties in interest were not
      required to file a written response or opposition to the motion. Opposition
      was offered at the initial hearing and the court continued this matter for
      further briefing. No further briefing was offered.

      The court’s tentative decision is to sustain the Objection. Oral argument may
      be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing, where the parties shall
      address the issues identified in this tentative ruling and such other issues
      as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s resolution of the matter. If
      the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final ruling, the court will make the
      following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

               The Chapter 13 Trustee opposes confirmation of the Plan on multiple
      basis.   First, Debtor has failed to provide the Trustee with a tax transcript

                                   September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                         - Page 55 of 180 -
as required by 11 U.S.C. § 521(e)(2)(A). Further, debtor has failed to provide
Trustee with Employer Payment Advices pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(1)(B)(iv).
Third, Debtor has failed to appear at the First Meeting of Creditors as
required by 11 U.S.C. § 343. Finally, Trustee argues that Debtor cannot make
payments under the plan. Debtor’s plan requires valuation of creditor West
Coast Servicing, Inc.’s secured claim; however, Debtor has not filed a motion
to value collateral.

        11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1) states that a plan shall not be confirmed unless
“the plan complies with the provisions of this chapter and the other applicable
provisions of this title.” The failures above result in noncompliance with 11
U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1) and the plan cannot be confirmed.

        The Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§1322 and 1325(a).        The
objection is sustained and the Plan is not confirmed.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Objection to the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
        Trustee having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that Objection to confirmation the Plan
        is sustained and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not
        confirmed.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 56 of 180 -
37.   11-27735-E-13   JOE/MARIE LUCAS                      MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
      TJW-1           Timothy J. Walsh                     8-1-11 [29]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtors, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
      parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      August 1, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 50 days’ notice was provided. 42
      days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The failure
      of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Confirm the Amended Plan is granted.            No appearance required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. The amended Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
      is confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
              Chapter 13 Plan filed on August 1, 2011, is confirmed, and
              counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
              confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
              the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
              approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
              order to the court.




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 57 of 180 -
38.   08-23637-E-13   KIM CORTES                           MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DISCHARGE
      SDB-2           W. Scott de Bie                      8-9-11 [61]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on July 12, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
      other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
      court’s calculation, 39 days’ notice was provided.

      Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion. Cf.
      Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
      will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
      hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
      Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
      interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
      court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.              No appearance required.

              With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
      provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
      competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed
      on August 13, 2011, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R.
      Bankr. P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee
      was entered on September 3, 2011 (Dckt. 67). The entry of an order approving
      the final report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See
      In re Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

              The Debtor’s Declaration certifies that the Debtor:

              1. has completed the plan payments,
              2. has completed a financial management course and filed the
              certificate with the court,
              3. does not have any delinquent domestic support obligations,
              4. has not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7, 11, or 12
              during the four-year period prior to filing of this case or a
              discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-year period prior to
              filing of this case,
              5. is not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1), and
              6. is not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11 U.S.C.
              § 522(q)(1).

      There being no objection, the Debtor is entitled to a discharge.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:



                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 58 of 180 -
              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
              Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
              shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.


39.   11-36737-E-13   GARY/BARBARA DUNAYE                  MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      MMM-1           Mohammad M. Mokarram                 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
                                                           8-4-11 [16]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Not Provided. The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      other parities, and Office of the United States Trustee on August 4, 2011.
      However, the respondent creditor, a FDIC insured depository institution, was
      not properly served as required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure
      7004(h). By the court’s calculation, 47 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’
      notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The
      court has determined that oral argument will not be of assistance in resolving
      this matter. No oral argument will be presented and the court shall issue its
      ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is denied without prejudice. No appearance
      required.

              The Debtors’ have served Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in accordance with
      7004(b)(3) by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to an agent
      authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process. However
      service upon the creditor, an insured depository institution, was not
      accomplished by certified mail to an officer of the institution as required by
      Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004(h). There is no evidence that the
      summons and complaint was sent to an officer of the institution at the
      addressed of 101 N. Phillips Avenue, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which is listed
      on both the California Secretary of State’s and the FDIC’s website.

              The Debtors’ have also failed to plead with particularity the grounds
      for which relief is sought. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9013. It appears the Debtors’ are
      trying to value a junior deed of trust of Wells Fargo, N.A. However, the Motion
      states that the value of the property at issue is $377,455.00. Dckt. 16. The

                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 59 of 180 -
      Debtors’ declaration states that the senior deed of trust also owned by Wells
      Fargo, N.A. is $248,773.00. Dckt. 18. Based on the evidence presented, it
      appears that there is enough collateral on the Debtors’ property to secure some
      of the value of the junior deed of trust, and therefore the junior deed of
      trust is not completely unsecured as the Debtors’ allege in their Motion. Dckt.
      16; see Zimmer v. PSB Lending Corp. (In re Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.
      2002).

              Due to the fact that service of process under 7004(h) has not been
      complied with and the Debtors’ have failed to plead with sufficient
      particularity the grounds for which relief is sought, the Motion to Value
      Collateral is denied without prejudice.


      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
              Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
              of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
              cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 506(a) is denied without prejudice.


40.   11-36737-E-13   GARY/BARBARA DUNAYE                  MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
      MMM-2           Mohammad M. Mokarram                 8-4-11 [20]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Not Provided. The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors, parties
      requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on August
      4, 2011. However, the Internal Revenue Service was not properly served as
      required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 2002-1(c). By the court’s calculation, 47
      days’ notice was provided. 42 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The Trustee
      filed opposition. The court has determined that oral argument will not be of
      assistance in resolving this matter. No oral argument will be presented and
      the court shall issue its ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

      The Motion to Confirm is denied and the Plan is not confirmed.         No appearance
      required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. Subsequent to the filing of this Motion, the Debtor filed a

                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 60 of 180 -
      second amended Plan on August 12, 2011. The filing of a new plan is a de facto
      withdrawal of the pending Plan. The motion is denied as moot and the plan is
      not confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
              as moot and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.


41.   09-47541-E-13   EARL/DOLORES STEVENS                 MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
      SDB-4           W. Scott de Bie                      8-9-11 [38]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors, parties
      requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on August
      9, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 42 days’ notice was provided. 35 days’
      notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). The failure
      of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Confirm the Modified Plan is granted.           No appearance required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1329 permits a debtor to modify a plan after confirmation.
      The modified Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and is confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 61 of 180 -
              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
              Chapter 13 Plan filed on August 9, 2011, is confirmed, and
              counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
              confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
              the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
              approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
              order to the court.


42.   11-37341-E-13   IGNACIO LEGASPI AND MARIA            MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      CAH-1           LEGASPI - TORRES                     CITIBANK, N.A.
                      C. Anthony Hughes                    8-18-11 [16]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      and Office of the United States Trustee on August 18, 2011. By the court’s
      calculation, 33 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtor’s declaration. The Debtor is
      the owner of the subject real property commonly known as 9936 Autum Sage Way,
      Elk Grove, California. The Debtor seeks to value the property at a fair market
      value of $188,000.00 as of the petition filing date.        As the owner, the
      Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid.
      701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173
      (9th Cir. 2004).


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 62 of 180 -
              The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
      $244,177.00.   Citibank, N.A.’s second deed of trust secures a loan with a
      balance of approximately $42,420.00.     Therefore, the respondent creditor’s
      claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-collateralized.
      The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount of $0.00, and
      therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under the terms of any
      confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending Corp. (In re
      Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift (In re Lam),
      211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant to Federal
      Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
              Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
              of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
              cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Citibank, N.A. secured by
              a second trust deed recorded against the real property
              commonly known as 9936 Autum Sage Way, Elk Grove, California,
              is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the balance of the
              claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under the confirmed
              Chapter 13 Plan.


43.   10-43342-E-13   BOB/HEATHER GONZALEZ                 MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
      SLH-3           Seth L. Hanson                       8-8-11 [38]


      Final Ruling:   The motion having been withdrawn by the moving party, this
      matter is removed from the calendar.




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 63 of 180 -
44.   11-28242-E-13   BILLY MORRISON                       MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      TJW-2           Timothy J. Walsh                     GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC
                                                           8-1-11 [24]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      and Office of the United States Trustee on August 1, 2011. By the court’s
      calculation, 50 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtor’s declaration. The Debtor is
      the owner of the subject real property commonly known as 730 Palermo Drive,
      Suisun City, California. The Debtor seeks to value the property at a fair
      market value of $120,000.00 as of the petition filing date. As the owner, the
      Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid.
      701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173
      (9th Cir. 2004).

               The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
      $241,665.00. Green Tree Servicing LLC’s second deed of trust secures a loan
      with a balance of approximately $147,000.00.        Therefore, the respondent
      creditor’s claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-
      collateralized. The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount
      of $0.00, and therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under
      the terms of any confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending
      Corp. (In re Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift
      (In re Lam), 211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant
      to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 64 of 180 -
                     The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
              Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
              of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
              cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Green Tree Servicing LLC
              secured by a second trust deed recorded against the real
              property commonly known as 730 Palermo Drive, Suisun City
              California, is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the
              balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
              the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.



45.   11-29242-E-13   KEVIN PARISOT                        MOTION TO AVOID LIEN OF ARROW
      JSO-2           Jeffrey S. Ogilvie                   FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC
                                                           8-5-11 [39]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      August 5, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 46 days’ notice was provided. 28
      days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Avoid a Judicial Lien has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Avoid a Judicial Lien is granted. No appearance required.

              A judgment was entered against the Debtors in favor of Arrow Financial
      Services LLC for the sum of $3,034.88. The abstract of judgment was recorded
      with Shasta County on July 29, 2010. That lien attached to the Debtors’
      residential real property commonly known as 2236 California Street, Redding,
      California.

              The motion is granted pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A). Pursuant
      to the Debtors’ Schedule A, the subject real property has an approximate value
      of $123,000.00 as of the date of the petition. The unavoidable consensual liens


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 65 of 180 -
      total $137,366.04 on that same date according to Debtors’ Schedule D. The
      Debtors have claimed an exemption of $25.00 pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
      § 703.140(b)(1). The respondent holds a judicial lien created by the
      recordation of an abstract of judgment in the chain of title of the subject
      real property. After application of the arithmetical formula required by 11
      U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(A), there is no equity to support the judicial lien.
      Therefore, the fixing of this judicial lien impairs the Debtors’ exemption of
      the real property and its fixing is avoided subject to 11 U.S.C. §
      349(b)(1)(B).

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Avoid Judicial Lien pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 522(f) filed by the Debtors having been presented to the
              court, and upon review of the pleadings, evidence, arguments
              of counsel, and good cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the judgment lien of Arrow Financial
              Services LLC, case number 10CV0140 recorded on July 29,2010,
              with the Shasta County Recorder, against the real property
              commonly known as 226 California Street, Redding, California
              is avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 522(f)91), subject to
              the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 349 if this bankruptcy
              case is dismissed.


46.   11-36242-E-13   ROBERT/LISA KNIGHT                   OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION OF
      NLE-1           Karen Ehler                          PLAN BY DAVID CUSICK
                                                           8-18-11 [14]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(2) Motion.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtors and Debtors’ Attorney on August 18,
      2011. By the court’s calculation, 33 days’ notice was provided. 14 days’
      notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Objection to the Plan was properly set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(2) and the procedure
      authorized by General Order 05-03, Paragraph 3(c). Consequently, the Debtor,
      the Trustee, the U.S. Trustee, and any other parties in interest were not
      required to file a written response or opposition to the motion. The court has
      determined that oral argument will be not be of assistance in resolving this
      matter.   No oral argument will be presented and the court shall issue its
      ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

      The Objection is overruled as moot and confirmation is denied.         No appearance
      required.


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 66 of 180 -
              Subsequent to the filing of this Motion, the Debtor filed a first
      amended Plan on September 7, 2011. The filing of a new plan is a de facto
      withdrawal of the pending Plan. The objection is overruled as moot and the
      plan is not confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Objection to Confirmation of the Chapter 13 Plan
              filed by the Trustee having been presented to the court, and
              upon review of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel,
              and good cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that Objection is overruled as moot and
              the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.


47.   11-37143-E-13   MELCHOR/BERYL ABELARDO               OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION OF
      NLE-1           Darrel C. Rumley                     PLAN BY DAVID CUSICK
                                                           8-25-11 [20]

      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(2) Motion.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 25, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Debtor and Debtor’s
      Attorney. By the court’s calculation, 26 days’ notice was provided.

      Tentative Ruling: The Objection to the Plan was properly set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(2) and the procedure
      authorized by General Order 05-03, Paragraph 3(c). Consequently, the Debtor,
      the Trustee, the U.S. Trustee, and any other parties in interest were not
      required to file a written response or opposition to the motion. If any of
      these potential respondents appear at the hearing and offers opposition to the
      motion, the court will set a briefing schedule and a final hearing unless there
      is no need to develop the record further. If no opposition is offered at the
      hearing, the court will take up the merits of the motion. Below is the court’s
      tentative ruling, rendered on the assumption that there will be no opposition
      to the motion. Obviously, if there is opposition, the court may reconsider
      this tentative ruling.

      The court’s tentative decision is to sustain the Objection. Oral argument may
      be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing, where the parties shall
      address the issues identified in this tentative ruling and such other issues
      as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s resolution of the matter. If
      the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final ruling, the court will make the
      following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

              The Chapter 13 Trustee opposes confirmation of the Plan on the basis
      that Debtors are claiming $1,800.00 a month for food expenses and $2,000.00 in
      monthly support for their three dependent children currently living in the
      Philippines. Dckt. 20 at 2. The Debtors allege that the $2,000.00 is for the

                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 67 of 180 -
support of their children and Joint Debtor’s father, who recently suffered two
heart attacks. The $2,000.00 is the only means of support of the Debtor’s
children and Joint Debtor’s father.

        The Debtors also explain in their declaration $1,800.00 food budget
includes support Debtors provide to the Debtor’s parents.       The funds they
provide only pays for Debtor’s parents’ rent, while Debtor’s parents incur out-
of-pocket medical costs because of certain medical conditions. However, this
support is inexplicably hidden by the Debtors in their food budget, which
causes the court to doubt the accuracy of the remainder of Schedule J. Because
the schedules do not accurately reflect Debtors’ expenses, the Trustee’s
objection is sustained.

        The court overrules the Trustee’s objection to the Statement of Current
Monthly Income (Form 22C) without prejudice as Debtors filed an amended Form
22C on September 15, 2011.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Objection to the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
        Trustee having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that Objection to confirmation the Plan
        is sustained and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not
        confirmed.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 68 of 180 -
48.   08-21444-E-13   STEPHEN/LOURAINE CAHOON              CONTINUED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
      DBJ-2           Douglas B. Jacobs                    DISCHARGE
                                                           7-20-11 [53]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.
      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on July 20, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
      other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
      court’s calculation, 62 days’ notice was provided.

      Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion. Cf.
      Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
      will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
      hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
      Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
      interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
      court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.              No appearance required.

              With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
      provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
      competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed
      on August 11, 2011, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R.
      Bankr. P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee
      was entered on September 3, 2011 (Dckt. 59). The entry of an order approving
      the final report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See
      In re Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

              The Debtor’s Declaration certifies that the Debtor:

              1. has completed the plan payments,
              2. has completed a financial management course and filed the
              certificate with the court,
              3. does not have any delinquent domestic support obligations,
              4. has not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7, 11, or 12
              during the four-year period prior to filing of this case or a
              discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-year period prior to
              filing of this case,
              5. is not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1), and
              6. is not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11 U.S.C.
              § 522(q)(1).

      There being no objection, the Debtor is entitled to a discharge.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:



                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 69 of 180 -
              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
              Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
              shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.


49.   10-33944-E-13   ALAN/JILL MORI                       CONTINUED MOTION TO CONFIRM
      SAC-8           Scott A. CoBen                       PLAN
                                                           5-20-11 [91]
      DISCHARGED 9-13-10


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on May 20, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
      other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
      court’s calculation, 53 days’ notice was provided.

      Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The Trustee
      having filed an opposition, the court will address the merits of the motion.

      The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Confirm the Amended
      Plan. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing,
      where the parties shall address the issues identified in this tentative ruling
      and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s
      resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final
      ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and conclusions of
      law:

               11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. The Trustee filed an opposition to the Motion to Confirm on June
      16, 2011 (Dckt. 98).       The Trustee calculates that the plan will take
      approximately ninety-one (91) months to complete which exceeds the maximum
      length of sixty (60) months pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(d)(1) and results in
      a commitment period that exceeds the permissible limit imposed by 11 U.S.C. §
      1325(b)(4). According to the Trustee, the plan proposes to pay $400.00 through
      May 25, 2011 (three plan months), then $300.00 for fifty-seven (57) months, for
      a total of $17,500.00. The plan proposes to pay the following debts:

              (1) $3,500.00 in attorneys’ fees;

              (2) $6,600.00 to the County of Sacramento in Class 2, deferred
              until the attorneys’ fees are paid; and



                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 70 of 180 -
        (3) 12% to General     Unsecured       Creditors      (of   a   projected
        42,471.00 in debt.

On its face, the plan provides for total plan payments of $15,924.56 to
creditors. The court estimates that there will be $1,225.00 in Chapter 13
Trustee fees. As drafted, the Plan is sufficiently funded.

        However, no provision is made for the unsecured portion of BAC Home
Loans second deed of trust, which is $93,408.00. If included in the unsecured
claim calculation, the Plan is significantly underfunded. But, as the Debtor
points out, there have been only $38,169.57 in general unsecured claims filed
in this case, with no proof of claim having been filed by BAC Home Loans.

        The Trustee also asserts that the proposed plan provides for Wells
Fargo Home Mortgage in Class 4, indicating that there are no arrears.
According to the debtors’ Schedule J, the debtors are attempting a loan
modification with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.     The Trustee is not certain
whether pre-petition arrears exist on the claim. The Trustee asserts that he
has not been provided with a copy of the debtors’ application for a loan
modification.

        The court notes that the debtors filed a motion to value BAC Home Loans
collateral. The court entered an order on August 27, 2011, determining that
this secured claim has a value of $0.00, with the balance to be paid as a
general unsecured claims to be paid a 12% dividend. Dckt. 117. The Debtors
shall address what basis there exists for not providing for the unsecured claim
which they sought to be determined by their motion to value.

         The debtors filed a reply on June 29, 2011 (Dckt. 101). Debtors state
that to date, the amount if claims filed totals $38,169.57, all of which are
unsecured claims. Debtors believe that the plan is feasible as scheduled and
will end within the maximum time frame of sixty (60) months.       The debtors
further state that they intend to obtain a loan modification, but will only
accept it if it provides a maximum monthly payment of $1,900.00 and forgives
all arrears. Debtors state that if they cannot obtain such a modification,
they will obtain a rental.      The debtors have not filed any evidence to
substantiate their “belief” that the plan is feasible and will end within the
proscribed time. The debtors have also provided no evidence that the Chapter
13 Trustee has received the loan modification application. Further, the Plan
provides no method for the Debtors to document and the Chapter 13 Trustee to
confirm that any modification is consistent with what is required for a Class
4 claim. Merely stating that a debtor intends to obtain a loan modification
is not a basis for ignoring the proper claim classification under the Chapter
13 Plan.

        The treatment of the Wells Fargo claim in Class 4 and the projected
$1,900.00 a month future rent or mortgage payment raises another issue.
Because all claims are not being paid in full and the Trustee has filed an
objection, all of the Debtors’ projected disposable income must be provided to
creditors. 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B).    The Debtors are not and have not been
making any mortgage or rent payments. Those monies are not accounted for under
the plan, and as such there is some projected disposable income which is not
being paid as required by the Bankruptcy Code.


                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 71 of 180 -
               On August 12, 2011, the Debtors filed a response to address the issue
      of the proposed loan modification. The Debtors propose making the payments on
      the Wells Fargo, N.A. claim through the Chapter 13 Trustee pending any loan
      modification. If the Debtors are unable to finalize a loan modification within
      one year of the date of confirmation, they will surrender the property to Wells
      Fargo, N.A.

              With respect to being able to afford the $1,900.00 a month payment
      pending a loan modification, the Debtors state that they incurred unexpected
      expenses after the commencement of this bankruptcy case.        These included
      $7,663.61 for car repairs and $8,616.63 educational expenses for their
      children. In addition, there were unusual heath expenses of $3,349.54, as well
      as additional utility expenses of $1,728.46. Interestingly, the Debtor’s reply
      and declaration provide no information where the acquired the $21,358.24 to pay
      these unexpected and unusual expenses during this bankruptcy case.

              Amended Schedule J states that the Debtors have only $300.00 a month
      in net income.     No provision is made for educational expenses, and no
      explanation is provided now $8,616.63 in educational expenses were unexpected
      and reasonable.

              This case was converted to one under Chapter 13 in August 2010. The
      $1,900.00 a month in mortgage payments for twelve months would be $22,800.00.
      The court finds it highly suspicious that there were extraordinary, unusual,
      and unexpected expenses almost exactly equal to the mortgage payments not being
      made by the Debtors during the pendency of this case. This testimony does not
      support the Debtors proceeding with this case and plan in good faith. That the
      Debtors had money and chose to spend it, rather than pay creditors, does not
      make it reasonable.

              The amended Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
      is not confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
              and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.


50.   10-40346-E-13   VALERIY KUTSAR                       MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
      BLG-2           Berkeley Collins                     7-22-11 [73]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 72 of 180 -
Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
supporting pleadings were served on Debtors, Debtors’ Attorney, Chapter 13
Trustee, and Office of the United States Trustee on August 3, 2011. By the
court’s calculation, 47 days’ notice was provided.

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on
the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The Chapter
13 Trustee filed opposition.     If it appears at the hearing that disputed
material factual issues remain to be resolved, a later evidentiary hearing will
be set. Local Bankr. R. 9014-1(g).

The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion. Oral argument may be
presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing, where the parties shall
address the issues identified in this tentative ruling and such other issues
as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s resolution of the matter. If
the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final ruling, the court will make the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

      The Chapter 13 Trustee opposes modification of the plan on the basis that
the Debtors’ course of action is unclear. Debtors modified plan proposes to
surrender the property to the creditor for the first deed of trust on the Garbo
Way property. Debtors’ plan then proposes to pay 100% to unsecured creditors,
with the only creditor being Chase for the second deed of trust on that same
Garbo Way property. There are no other claims filed by any creditors or by the
Debtors on behalf of any other creditors.

      The present plan modification for the bankruptcy case provides only for
the payment of the current monthly mortgage payment on the Class 4 residence,
the Debtors’ bankruptcy attorneys’ fees, and the Chapter 13 Trustee’s fees.
It is not clear from the pleadings or declaration provided what exactly is
being proposed or what has transpired with the Garbo Way property. The debtors
stated both in Schedule F of their petition and in their Chapter 13 Plan, that
the Garbo Way property was short sold in April 2010 to a third party. Debtors
filed the bankruptcy petition three months later, in July 2010.         If the
property indeed was short sold in April, then there would be no collateral to
include in the bankruptcy estate.

      To further complicate matters, the purported creditor, Chase Home
Finance, LLC, filed a secured claim in the bankruptcy case for the same
property on November 15, 2010. There is clearly a larger issue as to this
property and the underlying lien, which has not been pled in the pleadings.
Given the res judicata effect of plan confirmation, see In re Gregory, 705 F.2d
1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 1983), the court refuses to confirm the plan purports to
provide for a secured claim when the claim is not secured. This is cause to
deny confirmation.

     The proposed plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325, and
is not confirmed.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:



                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 73 of 180 -
           Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the Civil
           Minutes for the hearing.

                The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the Debtor
           having been presented to the court, and upon review of the
           pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing,

                IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Confirm is denied and the plan
           is not confirmed.


51.   11-33746-E-13   ALEXANDER/MARIA ELLESCAS             MOTION TO CONFIRM PLAN
      SJS-1           Scott J. Sagaria                     8-9-11 [22]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Not Provided. The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtors, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
      parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      August 9, 2011.   Howeverr, the Internal Revenue Service was not served as
      required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 2002-1(c). By the court’s calculation, 42
      days’ notice was provided. 42 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The failure
      of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The
      court has determined that oral argument will not be of assistance in resolving
      this matter. No oral argument will be presented and the court shall issue its
      ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

      The Motion to Confirm the Amended Plan is denied.             No appearance required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. However, Local Bankruptcy Rule 2002-1 provides that notices in
      adversary proceedings and contested matters that are served on the Internal
      Revenue Service shall be mailed to three entities at three different addresses,
      including the Office of the United States Attorney, unless a different address
      is specified:

                                   LOCAL RULE 2002-1
                                  Notice Requirements

              (a) Listing the United States as a Creditor; Notice to the
              United States. When listing an indebtedness to the United States
              for other than taxes and when giving notice, as required by FRBP
              2002(j)(4), the debtor shall list both the U.S. Attorney and the
              federal agency through which the debtor became indebted. The


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 74 of 180 -
       address of the notice to the U.S. Attorney shall include, in
       parenthesis, the name of the federal agency as follows:

               For Cases filed in the Sacramento Division:
               United States Attorney
               (For [insert name of agency])
               501 I Street, Suite 10-100
               Sacramento, CA 95814

               For Cases filed in the Modesto and Fresno Divisions:
               United States Attorney
               (For [insert name of agency])
               2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401
               Fresno, CA 93721-1318

       . . .

       (c) Notice to the Internal Revenue Service. In addition to
       addresses specified on the roster of governmental agencies
       maintained by the Clerk, notices in adversary proceedings and
       contested matters relating to the Internal Revenue Service shall
       be sent to all of the following addresses:

               (1)    United States Department of Justice
                      Civil Trial Section, Western Region
                      Box 683, Ben Franklin Station
                      Washington, D.C. 20044

               (2)    United States Attorney as specified in LBR 2002-
                      1(a) above; and,

               (3)    Internal   Revenue   Service  at   the addresses
                      specified on the roster of governmental agencies
                      maintained by the Clerk.

The proof of service lists only the following addresses as those used for
service on the Internal Revenue Service:

       Internal Revenue Service
       Centralized Insolvency Operations
       PO Box 7346
       Philadelphia, PA 19101-7346

       Atty Gen US Dept of Justice
       Civil Trail Sec Western Reg
       PO Box 683 Ben Franklin Stat
       Washington, DC 20044-0583

       US Atty Chief Tax Division
       450 Golden Gate Ave
       10th Floor Box 36055

                          September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                - Page 75 of 180 -
        San Francisco, CA 94102-3661

The proof of service states that the addresses used for service are the
preferred addresses for the Internal Revenue Service specified in a Notice of
Address filed by that governmental entity.

        A motion is a contested matter. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014. The proof
of service in this case indicates service was not made upon the U.S. Attorney
for the Eastern District of California and service was therefore inadequate.

        The motion is denied without prejudice.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
        Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
        without prejudice and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not
        confirmed.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 76 of 180 -
52.   11-33746-E-13   ALEXANDER/MARIA ELLESCAS             MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      SJS-2           Scott J. Sagaria                     CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY AND/OR
                                                           MOTION TO AVOID LIEN OF CENTRAL
                                                           MORTGAGE COMPANY
                                                           8-9-11 [28]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtors’, Debtor’s Attorney, Chapter 13
      Trustee, respondent creditor, and Office of the United States Trustee on August
      9, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 42 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’
      notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted, the creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00, and the motion to avoid a lien is denied.       No
      appearance required.

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtor’s declaration. The Debtor is
      the owner of the subject real property commonly known as 3760 Bridgeway Lakes
      Drive, West Sacramento, California. The Debtor seeks to value the property at
      a fair market value of $420,000.00 as of the petition filing date. As the
      owner, the Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed.
      R. Evid. 701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d
      1165, 1173 (9th Cir. 2004).

              The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
      $528,080. Central Mortgage Company’s second deed of trust secures a loan with
      a balance of approximately $65,213.00. Therefore, the respondent creditor’s
      claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-collateralized.
      The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount of $0.00, and
      therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under the terms of any
      confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending Corp. (In re
      Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift (In re Lam),
      211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant to Federal
      Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 77 of 180 -
        Finally, the court notes that this motion does not require the removal
of second deed of trust from the real property, contrary to Debtor’s arguments.
A request to determine the extent, validity, or priority of a security
interest, or a request to avoid a lien, requires adversary proceeding. Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 7001(2).     The court cannot determine the extent, validity, or
priority of the creditor’s security interest through a motion. This portion
of the requested relief is denied. If the creditor refuses to reconvey the
security interest once the underling obligation has been satisfied, then the
Debtor may bring an appropriate action.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
        Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
        of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
        cause appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
        § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Central Mortgage Company
        secured by a second trust deed recorded against the real
        property commonly known as 3760 Bridgeway Lakes Drive, West
        Sacramento, California, is determined to have a value of
        $0.00, and the balance of the claim is to be paid as an
        unsecured claim under the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.

               IT IS ORDERED that the motion to avoid the lien is
        denied without prejudice.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 78 of 180 -
53.   11-34851-E-13   ROBERT KNUCKLES                      MOTION TO CONFIRM PLAN
      CBS-2           Chaland B. Scrivner                  8-6-11 [22]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Not Provided. The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, Wells
      Fargo Bank’s attorney, and Office of the United States Trustee on August 6,
      2011. However, the motion, plan, and supporting pleadings were not served on
      all parties in derogation of General Order 05-03, Paragraph 8(a), and Federal
      Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b) and 3015(d). By the court’s calculation,
      45 days’ notice was provided. 42 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The failure
      of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The
      court has determined that oral argument will not be of assistance in resolving
      this matter. No oral argument will be presented and the court shall issue its
      ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

      The Motion to Confirm the Amended Plan is denied without prejudice.                   No
      appearance required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. However, the motion, plan, and supporting pleadings were not
      served on all parties in derogation of General Order 05-03, Paragraph 8(a), and
      Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b) and 3015(d). The motion is denie
      without prejudice

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS   ORDERED   that    the     Motion       is   denied   without
              prejudice.




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 79 of 180 -
54.   11-36953-E-13   MARIO/EMMA LIM                       MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      MET-1           Mary Ellen Terranella                CHASE HOME FINAMCE,
                                                           LLC/JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
                                                           8-13-11 [16]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent
      creditor, and Office of the United States Trustee on August 13, 2011. By the
      court’s calculation, 38 days’ notice was provided.       28 days’ notice is
      required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtor’s declaration. The Debtor is
      the owner of the subject real property commonly known as 3452 Palo Alto Court,
      Fairfield, California. The Debtor seeks to value the property at a fair market
      value of $350,000.00 as of the petition filing date.        As the owner, the
      Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid.
      701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173
      (9th Cir. 2004).

               The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
      $431,941.00. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s second deed of trust secures a loan
      with a balance of approximately $87,369.00.         Therefore, the respondent
      creditor’s claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-
      collateralized. The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount
      of $0.00, and therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under
      the terms of any confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending
      Corp. (In re Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift
      (In re Lam), 211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant
      to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:



                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 80 of 180 -
              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
              Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
              of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
              cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 506(a) is granted and the claim of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
              secured by a second trust deed recorded against the real
              property commonly known as 3452 Palo Alto Court, Fairfield,
              California, is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the
              balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
              the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.


55.   11-37754-E-13   MARI BILL                             MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      JB-1            Jason Borg                            BANK OF AMERICA
                                                            8-15-11 [17]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      and Office of the United States Trustee on August 15, 2011. By the court’s
      calculation, 36 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The
      court has determined that oral argument will not be of assistance in resolving
      this matter. No oral argument will be presented and the court shall issue its
      ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is denied without prejudice. No appearance
      required.

              The Debtor has served the creditor, Bank of America, N.A., at the
      address listed on the California Secretary of State’s website. However service
      upon Bank of America, N.A., an insured depository institution, was not
      accomplished by certified mail as required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
      Procedure 7004(h). Therefore, due to the lack of conformity with Federal Rule
      of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004(h), the Motion to Value Collateral is denied
      without prejudice.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:



                                   September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                         - Page 81 of 180 -
              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
              Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
              of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
              cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 506(a) is denied without prejudice.


56.   11-37754-E-13   MARI BILL                             MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      JB-2            Jason Borg                            GMAC MORTGAGE
                                                            8-15-11 [22]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      and Office of the United States Trustee on August 15, 2011. By the court’s
      calculation, 36 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtor’s declaration. The Debtor is
      the owner of the subject real property commonly known as 2255 Evergreen Avenue,
      West Sacramento, California. The Debtor seeks to value the property at a fair
      market value of $66,000.00 as of the petition filing date. As the owner, the
      Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid.
      701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173
      (9th Cir. 2004).

              The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
      $78,247.00. GMAC Mortgage LLC’s second deed of trust secures a loan with a
      balance of approximately $33,735.64.    Therefore, the respondent creditor’s
      claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-collateralized.


                                   September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                         - Page 82 of 180 -
The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount of $0.00, and
therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under the terms of any
confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending Corp. (In re
Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift (In re Lam),
211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant to Federal
Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
        Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
        of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
        cause appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
        § 506(a) is granted and the claim of GMAC Mortgage LLC secured
        by a second trust deed recorded against the real property
        commonly known as 2255 Evergreen Avenue, West Sacramento,
        California, is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the
        balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
        the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 83 of 180 -
57.   10-34955-E-13    JOHN WALKER                          MOTION FOR AN ORDER APPROVING
      JMC-5            Joseph M. Canning                    DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FROM SALE
                                                            OF PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE
                                                            AND/OR MOTION FOR COMPENSATION
                                                            FOR JOSEPH M. CANNING, DEBTOR’S
                                                            ATTORNEY(S), FEE: $220.00,
                                                            EXPENSES: $0.0
                                                            8-22-11 [76]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
      parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      August 22, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 29 days’ notice was provided.
      28 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The First Interim Application for Fees has been set for hearing
      on the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of
      the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The First Interim Application for Fees is granted and the request to disburse
      an unstated amount of money is denied without prejudice. No appearance is
      required.

      FEES REQUESTED

              Joseph Canning, Counsel for the Chapter 13 Debtor, makes a First
      Interim Application for Fees and Expenses. The period for which the fees are
      requested is for the period April 5, 2010 through July 28, 2010. Counsel opted
      in to the court’s “no-look” fee authorized by the Guidelines for Payment of
      Attorneys’ Fees in Chapter 13 Cases and was awarded $1,500.00 in fees upon
      confirmation of the Chapter 13 Plan. Dckt. 7.

              The obligations identified in the Rights and Responsibilities pleading
      state that counsel shall (1) Timely serve the debtor’s petition, plan,
      statements, and schedules on the chapter 13 trustee; (2) Timely serve the
      debtor’s plan and motions to value collateral and motions to avoid liens
      together with the notice of hearing required by paragraph 3(b) of General Order
      05-03; (3) Appear at the 341 Meeting of Creditors with the debtor; (4) Respond
      to objections to plan confirmation, and where necessary, prepare an amended
      plan; (5) Prepare, file, and serve necessary modifications to the plan which


                                   September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                         - Page 84 of 180 -
may include suspending, lowering, or increasing plan payments; (6) Prepare,
file and serve necessary amended statements and schedules, in accordance with
information provided by the debtor; (7) Prepare, file, and serve necessary
motions to buy, sell, or refinance property when appropriate; (8) Object to
improper or invalid claims, if necessary, based upon documentation provided by
the debtor; (9) Represent the debtor in motions for relief from stay; (10)
Where appropriate, prepare, file, and serve necessary motions to avoid liens
on real or personal property and to value the collateral of secured creditors;
(11) Provide such other legal services as are necessary for the administration
of the present case before the Bankruptcy Court.

          Where substantial and unanticipated post-confirmation        work   is
necessary, counsel may request the court to allow additional fees.

Description of Services for Which Fees Are Requested

        1.     Draft Motion to Sell Property on 4/5/2010: 4.0 Hours

         During this time Mr. Canning Drafted a Motion to Sell Personal Property
and supporting documents. Dckt. 65. Mr. Canning also spoke with opposing
counsel concerning the Motion to Sell Personal Property. Mr. Canning’s Motion
to Sell Property was granted by this court on July 30, 2011, and the order
stated that the net proceeds of the sale shall be disbursed directly from the
Escrow to the Chapter 13 Trustee. Dckt. 73. The Debtor is currently up to date
on all payments under the Chapter 13 plan according to the Trustee’s Report and
Account. Dckt. 75.

FEES ALLOWED

        In cases where an applicant for fees has excepted the court’s
pre-approved   no-look   fee  the   applicant   has  the   responsibility   of
“demonstrat[ing] that the fee allowed by the chapter 13 fee guidelines was not
sufficient in view of the amount or complexity of the work undertaken for the
debtor.” In re Pedersen, 229 B.R. 445, 448 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1999).        Any
compensation paid must be reasonable considering the benefit to the Debtor and
the necessity of the services. Id.; 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(B). Several factors
are included in the analysis, including:

        1.     The time spent on the services
        2.     The rates charged for such services
        3.     Whether the services were necessary to the administration of
               the estate
        4.     Whether the services were performed within a reasonable period
               in light of the complexity, importance, and nature of the
               problem, issue, or task
        5.     Whether the professional is certified or has demonstrated skill
               in the bankruptcy field
        6.     Whether the compensation is reasonable based on the customary
               compensation charged by comparably skilled practitioners in
               cases under the Bankruptcy Code.

11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3).



                             September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                   - Page 85 of 180 -
        The hourly rates for the fees billed in this case are $220.00/hour for
counsel for 4.0 hours. Dckt. 79 at 25. Mr. Canning based on a professional
courtesy reduced his rate by $660.00 and is only charging the Debtor for 1.0
at $220.00. The court finds that the hourly rates reasonable and that counsel
effectively used appropriate counsel and rates for the services provided. The
total attorneys’ fees in the amount of $220.00 are approved and authorized to
be paid by the Trustee from the available funds of the Estate in a manner
consistent with the order of distribution in a Chapter 13 case.

        Counsel is allowed, and the Trustee is authorized to pay, the following
amounts as compensation as a professional in this case:

        Attorneys’ Fees                               $220.00
        Costs and Expenses                            $ 0.00

For a total final allowance of $220.00 in Attorneys’ Fees.

        The Motion also requests that the court order the disbursement of an
unspecified amount of money to the Debtor pursuant to a claim of exemption.
This case has previously been plagued with incomplete motions and failure to
fully disclose the economics of the proposed transaction. See Debtor’s Ex. A
in support of the Motion. Counsel for the Debtor shall file a Motion, which
states with particularity the grounds and relief requested, as required by Fed.
R. Bankr. P. 9013, for any requested disbursement of monies from the sales
proceeds claimed as exempt on or before October 1, 2011.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Allowance of Fees and Expenses filed by
        Counsel having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that Joseph M. Canning of Hillman &
        Lucas, P.C. is allowed the following fees and expenses as a
        professional of the Estate:

        Joseph M. Canning of Hillman & Lucas, P.C., Counsel for the
        Debtor
        Applicant’s Fees Allowed in the amount of $220.00
        Applicants Expenses Allowed in the amount of $ 0.00,

               IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this is the first interim
        allowance subject to final review and approval of fees
        pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 331, and the Trustee is
        authorized to pay such fees in accordance with the confirmed
        Chapter 13 Plan.

               IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counsel for the Debtor shall
        file a Motion, which states with particularity the grounds and

                             September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                   - Page 86 of 180 -
              relief requested, as required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9013, for
              any requested disbursement of monies from the sales proceeds
              claimed as exempt on or before October 1, 2011.

                      No other or further relief is granted.


58.   11-34855-E-13   JOHN COBRAE                          CONTINUED MOTION TO AVOID LIEN
      RPH-1           Robert P. Huckaby                    OF CHA-DOR REALTY DBA MEEKS
                                                           6-27-11 [14]


      Proper Notice Not Provided. The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      and Office of the United States Trustee on July 21, 2011. However, notice was
      not timely sent and the U.S. Trustee and the Chapter 13 Trustee were not
      properly served. By the court’s calculation, 47 days’ notice was provided.

      Tentative Ruling: The motion to Avoid the Lien was not properly set for
      hearing. The Chapter 13 Trustee and respondent creditor filed opposition. If
      it appears at the hearing that disputed material factual issues remain to be
      resolved, a later evidentiary hearing will be set. Local Bankr. R. 9014-1(g).

      The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Value Collateral
      without prejudice.   Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the
      scheduled hearing, where the parties shall address the issues identified in
      this tentative ruling and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate
      to the court’s resolution of the matter.    If the court’s tentative ruling
      becomes its final ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact
      and conclusions of law:

              The debtor’s plan includes a motion to avoid lien which is procedurally
      improper.   Attached motions to avoid liens pursuant to section 522(f) or
      motions to value collateral are permitted by Paragraph 3 of General Order 05-
      03. Pursuant to that paragraph, each attached motion is required to have been
      served with a separate notice of the motion. See Gen. Order 05-03, ¶ 3(b). The
      separate notice of the motion is to be served not later than 18 days before the
      date first set for the meeting of creditors. Id.

              Here, debtors failed to timely file or serve a separate notice of the
      attached motions. The date first set for the meeting of creditors was July 21,
      2011. According to the proof of service, the notice for this motion was not
      sent until July 21, 2011.

              Second, Debtor incorrectly served the U.S. Trustee and the Chapter 13
      Trustee through the court’s ECF System. The court’s rules do not permit the use
      of the ECF system for service. See Local Bankr. R. 7005-1(d) (electronic
      service must be made directly by email). The Chapter 13 Trustee opposes the
      motion on this basis.

              Accordingly, the attached motions are procedurally improper and denied
      without prejudice.



                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 87 of 180 -
      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Avoid Lien filed by Debtor(s) having been
              presented to the court, and upon review of the pleadings,
              evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 522 is denied without prejudice.


59.   11-34855-E-13   JOHN COBRAE                          CONTINUED MOTION TO VALUE
      RPH-2           Robert P. Huckaby                    COLLATERAL OF BANK OF THE WEST
                                                           6-27-11 [14]


      Proper Notice Not Provided. The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      and Office of the United States Trustee on July 21, 2011. However, notice was
      not timely sent and the U.S. Trustee and the Chapter 13 Trustee were not
      properly served. By the court’s calculation, 47 days’ notice was provided.

      Tentative Ruling: The motion to Avoid the Lien was not properly set for
      hearing. The Chapter 13 Trustee and respondent creditor filed opposition. If
      it appears at the hearing that disputed material factual issues remain to be
      resolved, a later evidentiary hearing will be set. Local Bankr. R. 9014-1(g).

      The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Value Collateral
      without prejudice.   Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the
      scheduled hearing, where the parties shall address the issues identified in
      this tentative ruling and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate
      to the court’s resolution of the matter.    If the court’s tentative ruling
      becomes its final ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact
      and conclusions of law:

              The debtor’s plan includes a motion to avoid lien which is procedurally
      improper.   Attached motions to avoid liens pursuant to section 522(f) or
      motions to value collateral are permitted by Paragraph 3 of General Order 05-
      03. Pursuant to that paragraph, each attached motion is required to have been
      served with a separate notice of the motion. See Gen. Order 05-03, ¶ 3(b). The
      separate notice of the motion is to be served not later than 18 days before the
      date first set for the meeting of creditors. Id.

              Here, debtors failed to timely file or serve a separate notice of the
      attached motions. The date first set for the meeting of creditors was July 21,
      2011. According to the proof of service, the notice for this motion was not
      sent until July 21, 2011.

              Second, Debtor incorrectly served the U.S. Trustee and the Chapter 13
      Trustee through the court’s ECF System. The court’s rules do not permit the use


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 88 of 180 -
      of the ECF system for service. See Local Bankr. R. 7005-1(d) (electronic
      service must be made directly by email). The Chapter 13 Trustee opposes the
      motion on this basis.

              Accordingly, the attached motions are procedurally improper and denied
      without prejudice.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Avoid Lien filed by Debtor(s) having been
              presented to the court, and upon review of the pleadings,
              evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 522 is denied without prejudice.


60.   11-34855-E-13   JOHN COBRAE                          CONTINUED MOTION TO AVOID LIEN
      RPH-4           Robert P. Huckaby                    OF TINA FUSCO
                                                           7-21-11 [23]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion.

      Proper Notice Not Provided. The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      and Office of the United States Trustee on August 8, 2011. However, the U.S.
      Trustee and the Chapter 13 Trustee were not properly served. By the court’s
      calculation, 29 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1).        The court has
      determined that oral argument will not be of assistance in resolving this
      matter.   No oral argument will be presented and the court shall issue its
      ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

      The court’s final decision is to deny the Motion to Avoid Lien without
      prejudice. No Appearance required.

              The court notes that Debtor’s motion does not plead the necessary
      elements of a Motion to Avoid Lien. Instead, the Debtor’s Motion merely states
      that “Debtor JOHN EDWARD COBRAE hereby moves the Court to avoid the judicial
      lien of TINA FUSCO.” (Dckt 23).      Rule 9013, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
      Procedure, requires that “The motion shall state with particularity the grounds
      therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought.” It is not for the
      court to traverse through other pleadings to make Debtor’s case for him.

              Second, Debtor incorrectly served the U.S. Trustee and the Chapter 13
      Trustee through the court’s ECF System. The court’s rules do not permit the use


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 89 of 180 -
      of the ECF system for service. See Local Bankr. R. 7005-1(d) (electronic
      service must be made directly by email). The Chapter 13 Trustee opposes the
      motion on this basis.

              The motion is denied without prejudice.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Avoid Judicial Lien filed by Debtor(s)
              having been presented to the court, and upon review of the
              pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS   ORDERED   that    the     motion       is   denied   without
              prejudice.


61.   11-34855-E-13   JOHN COBRAE                          CONTINUED MOTION TO CONFIRM
      RPH-3           Robert P. Huckaby                    PLAN
                                                           7-21-11 [19]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
      parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      July 21, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 47 days’ notice was provided. 42
      days’ notice is required.

      Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). A creditor
      having filed an opposition, the court will address the merits of the motion at
      the hearing.   If it appears at the hearing that disputed material factual
      issues remain to be resolved, a later evidentiary hearing will be set. Local
      Bankr. R. 9014-1(g).

      The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Confirm the Amended
      Plan without prejudice. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the
      scheduled hearing, where the parties shall address the issues identified in
      this tentative ruling and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate
      to the court’s resolution of the matter.    If the court’s tentative ruling
      becomes its final ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact
      and conclusions of law:

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. Creditor Lynn Palmer opposes confirmation on the basis that the
      plan does not accurately classify creditor’s claim. The plan lists the claim


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 90 of 180 -
in Class 4, indicating that the claim is not in default and matures after
completion of the plan. In fact, the Plan affirmatively states that the claim
matures in 2037.

        Palmer argues that the claim matured under its own terms in April 2011.
In support of this contention, Palmer offers what purports to be a copy of the
note.   The note, which is improperly attached as an exhibit both to the
declaration and the supplemental opposition, states that the note matured on
March 15, 2011. Since the claim is matured, it cannot be a Class 4 claim. If
the claim is provided for by the plan, the allowed claim must be paid in full
over the life of the plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(2).

        Given the res judicata effect of plan confirmation, see In re Gregory,
705 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 1983), the court refuses to confirm the plan that
does not accurately reflect the classification of a claim. This is cause to
deny confirmation.

        Moreover, the plan depends upon motions to value a secured claim and
two motions to avoid a lien pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f). The court denied
these motions without prejudice. This impairs the feasibility of the proposed
plan payment and is cause to deny confirmation. 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(6).

        Though neither the Trustee, the U.S. Trustee, nor any creditor has
raised the issue, the court has an independent duty to make certain that the
requirements for confirmation have been met. See United Student Aid Funds,
Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S.   , 130 S. Ct. 1367, 1381 n.14, 176 L. Ed. 2d 158,
173 n.14 (2010); see also Varela v. Dynamic Brokers, Inc. (In re Dynamic
Brokers, Inc.), 293 B.R. 489, 499 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003) (citing Everett v.
Perez (In re Perez), 30 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1994)).

        The motion is denied without prejudice and the Plan is not confirmed.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
        Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
        without prejudice and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not
        confirmed.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 91 of 180 -
62.   10-34956-E-13    MICHAEL HOBSON                       MOTION FOR AN ORDER APPROVING
      JMC-5            Joseph M. Canning                    DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FROM SALE
                                                            OF PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE
                                                            AND/OR MOTION FOR COMPENSATION
                                                            FOR JOSEPH M. CANNING, DEBTOR’S
                                                            ATTORNEY(S), FEE: $220.00,
                                                            EXPENSES: $0.0
                                                            8-22-11 [75]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
      parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      August 22, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 29 days’ notice was provided.
      28 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The First Interim Application for Fees has been set for hearing
      on the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of
      the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The First Interim Application for Fees is granted and the request to disburse
      an unstated amount of money is denied without prejudice. No appearance is
      required.

      FEES REQUESTED

              Joseph Canning, Counsel for the Chapter 13 Debtor, makes a First
      Interim Application for Fees and Expenses. The period for which the fees are
      requested is for the period April 5, 2010 through May 27, 2011. Counsel opted
      in to the court’s “no-look” fee authorized by the Guidelines for Payment of
      Attorneys’ Fees in Chapter 13 Cases and was awarded $1,500.00 in fees upon
      confirmation of the Chapter 13 Plan. Dckt. 7.

              The obligations identified in the Rights and Responsibilities pleading
      state that counsel shall (1) Timely serve the debtor’s petition, plan,
      statements, and schedules on the chapter 13 trustee; (2) Timely serve the
      debtor’s plan and motions to value collateral and motions to avoid liens
      together with the notice of hearing required by paragraph 3(b) of General Order
      05-03; (3) Appear at the 341 Meeting of Creditors with the debtor; (4) Respond
      to objections to plan confirmation, and where necessary, prepare an amended
      plan; (5) Prepare, file, and serve necessary modifications to the plan which


                                   September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                         - Page 92 of 180 -
may include suspending, lowering, or increasing plan payments; (6) Prepare,
file and serve necessary amended statements and schedules, in accordance with
information provided by the debtor; (7) Prepare, file, and serve necessary
motions to buy, sell, or refinance property when appropriate; (8) Object to
improper or invalid claims, if necessary, based upon documentation provided by
the debtor; (9) Represent the debtor in motions for relief from stay; (10)
Where appropriate, prepare, file, and serve necessary motions to avoid liens
on real or personal property and to value the collateral of secured creditors;
(11) Provide such other legal services as are necessary for the administration
of the present case before the Bankruptcy Court.

          Where substantial and unanticipated post-confirmation                     work   is
necessary, counsel may request the court to allow additional fees.

Description of Services for Which Fees Are Requested:

        1.     Draft Motion to Sell           Property         on   4/5/2010,   7/28/2010,
               5/27/2011: 4.0 Hours

         During this time Mr. Canning Drafted a Motion to Sell Personal Property
and supporting documents. Dckt. 64. Mr. Canning also spoke with opposing
counsel concerning the Motion to Sell Personal Property. Mr. Canning’s Motion
to Sell Property was granted by this court on July 30, 2011, and the order
stated that the net proceeds of the sale shall be disbursed directly from the
Escrow to the Chapter 13 Trustee. Dckt. 72. The Debtor is currently up to date
on all payments under the Chapter 13 plan according to the Trustee’s Report and
Account. Dckt. 74.

FEES ALLOWED

        In cases where an applicant for fees has excepted the court’s
pre-approved   no-look   fee  the   applicant   has   the  responsibility   of
“demonstrat[ing] that the fee allowed by the chapter 13 fee guidelines was not
sufficient in view of the amount or complexity of the work undertaken for the
debtor.” In re Pedersen, 229 B.R. 445, 448 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1999).        Any
compensation paid must be reasonable considering the benefit to the Debtor and
the necessity of the services. Id.; 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(B). Several factors
are included in the analysis, including:

        1.     The time spent on the services
        2.     The rates charged for such services
        3.     Whether the services were necessary to the administration of
               the estate
        4.     Whether the services were performed within a reasonable period
               in light of the complexity, importance, and nature of the
               problem, issue, or task
        5.     Whether the professional is certified or has demonstrated skill
               in the bankruptcy field
        6.     Whether the compensation is reasonable based on the customary
               compensation charged by comparably skilled practitioners in
               cases under the Bankruptcy Code.

11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3).


                             September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                   - Page 93 of 180 -
        The hourly rates for the fees billed in this case are $220.00/hour for
counsel for 4.0 hours. Dckt. 78 at 28. Mr. Canning based on a professional
courtesy reduced his rate by $660.00 and is only charging the Debtor for 1.0
at $220.00. The court finds that the hourly rates reasonable and that counsel
effectively used appropriate counsel and rates for the services provided. The
total attorneys’ fees in the amount of $220.00 are approved and authorized to
be paid by the Trustee from the available funds of the Estate in a manner
consistent with the order of distribution in a Chapter 13 case.

        Counsel is allowed, and the Trustee is authorized to pay, the following
amounts as compensation as a professional in this case:

        Attorneys’ Fees                               $220.00
        Costs and Expenses                            $ 0.00

For a total final allowance of $220.00 in Attorneys’ Fees.

        The Motion also requests that the court order the disbursement of an
unspecified amount of money to the Debtor pursuant to a claim of exemption.
This case has previously been plagued with incomplete motions and failure to
fully disclose the economics of the proposed transaction. See Debtor’s Ex. A
in support of the Motion. Counsel for the Debtor shall file a Motion, which
states with particularity the grounds and relief requested, as required by Fed.
R. Bankr. P. 9013, for any requested disbursement of monies from the sales
proceeds claimed as exempt on or before October 1, 2011.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Allowance of Fees and Expenses filed by
        Counsel having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that Joseph M. Canning of Hillman &
        Lucas, P.C. is allowed the following fees and expenses as a
        professional of the Estate:

        Joseph M. Canning of Hillman & Lucas, P.C., Counsel for the
        Debtor
        Applicant’s Fees Allowed in the amount of $220.00
        Applicants Expenses Allowed in the amount of $ 0.00,

               IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this is the first interim
        allowance subject to final review and approval of fees
        pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 331, and the Trustee is
        authorized to pay such fees in accordance with the confirmed
        Chapter 13 Plan.




                             September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                   - Page 94 of 180 -
                     IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counsel for the Debtor shall
              file a Motion, which states with particularity the grounds and
              relief requested, as required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9013, for
              any requested disbursement of monies from the sales proceeds
              claimed as exempt on or before October 1, 2011.

                      No other or further relief is granted.


63.   06-20257-E-13   CURTIS/LAURIEANN                     CONTINUED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
      WW-12           SIVERLING                            DISCHARGE
                      Mark A. Wolff                        8-1-11 [183]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.
      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 1, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
      other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
      court’s calculation, 50 days’ notice was provided.

      Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion. Cf.
      Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
      will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
      hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
      Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
      interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
      court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.              No appearance required.

              With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
      provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
      competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed
      on August 10, 2011, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R.
      Bankr. P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee
      was entered on September 3, 2011 (Dckt. 190). The entry of an order approving
      the final report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See
      In re Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

              The Debtor’s Declaration certifies that the Debtor:

              1. has completed the plan payments,
              2. has completed a financial management course and filed the
              certificate with the court,
              3. does not have any delinquent domestic support obligations,
              4. has not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7, 11, or 12
              during the four-year period prior to filing of this case or a
              discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-year period prior to
              filing of this case,


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 95 of 180 -
              5. is not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1), and
              6. is not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11 U.S.C.
              § 522(q)(1).

      There being no objection, the Debtor is entitled to a discharge.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
              Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
              shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.


64.   10-32857-E-13   DEAN NYLAND                          OBJECTION TO CLAIM OF INTERNAL
      ACK-4           Aaron C. Koenig                      REVENUE SERVICE, CLAIM NUMBER
                                                           14
                                                           7-27-11 [74]


      Final Ruling: Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(j), the joint request
      for a continuance is granted. No appearance required.

      The hearing on Debtors’ objection to the claim of the Internal Revenue Service
      is continued to 2:00 p.m. on October 18, 2011, pursuant to the stipulation of
      the parties to allow them additional time to resolve the objection without
      further litigation.




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 96 of 180 -
65.   10-44857-E-13   IRMA BARRAGAN                        MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
      PGM-7           Peter G. Macaluso                    8-12-11 [75]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
      parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      August 12, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 39 days’ notice was provided.
      35 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). The failure
      of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Confirm the Modified Plan is granted.           No appearance required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1329 permits a debtor to modify a plan after confirmation.
      The modified Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and is confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
              Chapter 13 Plan filed on August 12, 2011, is confirmed, and
              counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
              confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
              the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
              approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
              order to the court.




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 97 of 180 -
66.   11-32157-E-13   EDWARD WHEMPNER AND                  MOTION TO CONFIRM PLAN
      CAH-1           KIMBERLY MORIN                       8-8-11 [21]
                      C. Anthony Hughes


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors, parties
      requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on August
      8, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 43 days’ notice was provided. 42 days’
      notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The failure
      of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Confirm the Amended Plan is granted.            No appearance required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. The amended Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
      is confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
              Chapter 13 Plan filed on August 8, 2011, is confirmed, and
              counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
              confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
              the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
              approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
              order to the court.



                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 98 of 180 -
67.   11-24061-E-13   ROMUALDO/FRANCISCA                   CONTINUED MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
      SDB-4           VERCELES                             6-17-11 [36]
                      W. Scott de Bie

      CONT. FROM 8-2-11


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors, parties
      requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on June 17,
      2011. By the court’s calculation, 36 days’ notice was provided. 42 days’
      notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The failure
      of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Confirm the Amended Plan is granted.            No appearance required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. The court continued the hearing so Deutsche Bank National Trust
      Company could file an amended proof of claim correcting its pre-petition
      arrearage claim. That claim was filed on August 5, 2011. The amended Plan
      complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and is confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
              Chapter 13 Plan filed on June 17, 2011, is confirmed, and
              counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
              confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 99 of 180 -
              the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
              approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
              order to the court.


68.   11-27162-E-13   ABBY KARAVANI                        MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      PGM-2           Peter G. Macaluso                    CITIMORTGAGE, INC.
                                                           8-22-11 [60]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      and Office of the United States Trustee on August 22, 2011. By the court’s
      calculation, 29 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtor’s declaration. The Debtor is
      the owner of the subject real property commonly known as 6963 Escallonia Drive,
      Orangevale, California.    The Debtor seeks to value the property at a fair
      market value of $140,000.00 as of the petition filing date. As the owner, the
      Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid.
      701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173
      (9th Cir. 2004).

              The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
      $165,000.000. CitiMortgage, Inc.’s second deed of trust secures a loan with
      a balance of approximately $30,000.00. Therefore, the respondent creditor’s
      claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-collateralized.
      The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount of $0.00, and
      therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under the terms of any
      confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending Corp. (In re
      Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift (In re Lam),
      211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant to Federal
      Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.



                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 100 of 180 -
      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
              Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
              of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
              cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 506(a) is granted and the claim of CitiMortggage secured by
              a second trust deed recorded against the real property
              commonly known as 6963 Escallonia Drive, Orangevale,
              California, is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the
              balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
              the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.


69.   11-27162-E-13   ABBY KARAVANI                        MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      PGM-3           Peter G. Macaluso                    ALTERNATIVE WEALTH BUILDERS,
                                                           INC.
                                                           8-22-11 [64]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      Office of the United States Trustee, and other parties of interest on August
      22, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 29 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’
      notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtor’s declaration. The Debtor is
      the owner of the subject real property commonly known as 3755 Las Pasas Way,


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 101 of 180 -
Sacramento, California.    The Debtor seeks to value the property at a fair
market value of $300,000.00 as of the petition filing date. As the owner, the
Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid.
701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173
(9th Cir. 2004).

         The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
$312,229.91. Alternative Wealth Builders, Inc.’s second deed of trust secures
a loan with a balance of approximately $119,000.00. Therefore, the respondent
creditor’s claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-
collateralized. The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount
of $0.00, and therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under
the terms of any confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending
Corp. (In re Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift
(In re Lam), 211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant
to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
        Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
        of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
        cause appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
        § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Alternative Wealth
        Builders, Inc. secured by a second trust deed recorded against
        the real property commonly known as 3755 Las Pasas Way,
        Sacramento, California, is determined to have a value of
        $0.00, and the balance of the claim is to be paid as an
        unsecured claim under the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 102 of 180 -
70.   09-40364-E-13   PATRICIA SHERRON                     MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
      CJY-3           Christian J. Younger                 8-5-11 [43]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors, parties
      requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on August
      5, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 46 days’ notice was provided. 42 days’
      notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The failure
      of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Confirm the Amended Plan is granted.            No appearance required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. The amended Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
      is confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
              Chapter 13 Plan filed on August 5, 2011, is confirmed, and
              counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
              confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
              the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
              approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
              order to the court.




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 103 of 180 -
71.   11-26965-E-13   GILDARDO/YARENI GOMEZ                MOTION TO CONFIRM PLAN
      TOG-10          Thomas O. Gillis                     8-3-11 [97]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtors, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
      parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      August 3, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 48 days’ notice was provided. 42
      days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The failure
      of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Confirm the Amended Plan is granted.            No appearance required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. The amended Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
      is confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
              Chapter 13 Plan filed on August 3, 2011, is confirmed, and
              counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
              confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
              the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
              approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
              order to the court.




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 104 of 180 -
72.   11-37366-E-13   HELEN ALEXANDER                      MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      DMA-1           David M. Alden                       BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
                                                           8-11-11 [14]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      Office of the United States Trustee, and other parties of interest on August
      11, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 40 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’
      notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.

              The Debtor is the owner of the subject real property commonly known as
      5258 Scarborough Way, Sacramento, California. The Debtor seeks to value the
      property at a fair market value of $102,000.00 as of the petition filing date.
      Debtor offers the Declaration of William McKnight, a certified residential real
      estate appraiser with 6 years’ experience, performing over 700 appraisals, who
      opines that the value of the property is $102,000.00.

              The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
      $231,607.10. Bank of America, N.A.’s second deed of trust secures a loan with
      a balance remaining. Therefore, the respondent creditor’s claim secured by a
      junior deed of trust is completely under-collateralized.       The creditor’s
      secured claim is determined to be in the amount of $0.00, and therefore no
      payments shall be made on the secured claim under the terms of any confirmed
      Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending Corp. (In re Zimmer), 313
      F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift (In re Lam), 211 B.R. 36
      (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997).    The valuation motion pursuant to Federal Rule of
      Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 105 of 180 -
                     The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
              Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
              of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
              cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Bank of America, N.A.
              secured by a second trust deed recorded against the real
              property commonly known as 5258 Scarborough Way, Sacramento,
              California, is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the
              balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
              the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.


73.   11-34468-E-13   ELAINE NORDLUND                      MOTION TO CONFIRM PLAN
      MMM-1           Mohammad M. Mokarram                 8-3-11 [14]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Not Provided. The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors, parties
      requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on August
      3, 2011. However, the Internal Revenue Service was not properly served as
      required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 2002-1(c). By the court’s calculation, 48
      days’ notice was provided. 42 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The failure
      of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The
      court has determined that oral argument will not be of assistance in resolving
      this matter. No oral argument will be presented and the court shall issue its
      ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

      The Motion to Confirm the Amended Plan is denied without prejudice.           No
      appearance required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. Local Bankruptcy Rule 2002-1 provides that notices in adversary
      proceedings and contested matters that are served on the Internal Revenue
      Service shall be mailed to three entities at three different addresses,
      including the Office of the United States Attorney, unless a different address
      is specified:

                                   LOCAL RULE 2002-1
                                  Notice Requirements

              (a) Listing the United States as a Creditor; Notice to the
              United States. When listing an indebtedness to the United States

                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 106 of 180 -
        for other than taxes and when giving notice, as required by FRBP
        2002(j)(4), the debtor shall list both the U.S. Attorney and the
        federal agency through which the debtor became indebted. The
        address of the notice to the U.S. Attorney shall include, in
        parenthesis, the name of the federal agency as follows:

                For Cases filed in the Sacramento Division:
                United States Attorney
                (For [insert name of agency])
                501 I Street, Suite 10-100
                Sacramento, CA 95814

                For Cases filed in the Modesto and Fresno Divisions:
                United States Attorney
                (For [insert name of agency])
                2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401
                Fresno, CA 93721-1318

        . . .

        (c) Notice to the Internal Revenue Service. In addition to
        addresses specified on the roster of governmental agencies
        maintained by the Clerk, notices in adversary proceedings and
        contested matters relating to the Internal Revenue Service shall
        be sent to all of the following addresses:

                (1)    United States Department of Justice
                       Civil Trial Section, Western Region
                       Box 683, Ben Franklin Station
                       Washington, D.C. 20044

                (2)    United States Attorney as specified in LBR 2002-
                       1(a) above; and,

                (3)    Internal   Revenue   Service  at   the addresses
                       specified on the roster of governmental agencies
                       maintained by the Clerk.

The proof of service lists only the following addresses as those used for
service on the Internal Revenue Service:

        Department of the Treasury
        Internal Revenue Service
        PO Box 7346
        Philadelphia, PA 19101-7346

The proof of service states that the addresses used for service are the
preferred addresses for the Internal Revenue Service specified in a Notice of
Address filed by that governmental entity.



                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 107 of 180 -
        A motion is a contested matter. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014. The proof
of service in this case indicates service was not made on all three addresses,
and service was therefore inadequate.

        Further, Debtors have failed to meet their burden of proving the
requirements of confirmation. See Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Wolff (In re
Wolff), 22 B.R. 510, 512 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1982) (holding that the proponent of
a Chapter 13 plan has the burden of proof as to confirmation). Such evidence,
typically in the form of a Debtors’ Declaration proving the elements of 11
U.S.C. §1325(a), is required. See Local Bankr. R. 9014-1(d)(6).        While a
declaration is offered, it fails to address it Debtors have filed all required
tax returns, have any domestic support obligations, or offer any facts showing
how they have the ability to afford the plan payments and how the plan meets
the liquidation analysis. 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4), (a)(6)-(9).

        The motion is denied without prejudice.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
        Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS   ORDERED   that    the     Motion       is   denied   without
        prejudice.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 108 of 180 -
74.   10-36069-E-13   ANTON GONCZERUK                       MOTION FOR HARDSHIP DISCHARGE
      LBG-3           Sarah Litchney                        8-15-11 [25]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors, parties
      requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on August
      3, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 36 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’
      notice is required.

      Tentative Ruling: The Motion for a Hardship Discharge has been set for hearing
      on the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(2). The Chapter 13
      Trustee filed opposition. If it appears at the hearing that disputed material
      factual issues remain to be resolved, a later evidentiary hearing will be set.
      Local Bankr. R. 9014-1(g).

      The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion for a Hardship Discharge
      without prejudice.   Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the
      scheduled hearing, where the parties shall address the issues identified in
      this tentative ruling and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate
      to the court’s resolution of the matter.     If the court’s tentative ruling
      becomes its final ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact
      and conclusions of law:

              Debtor seeks a discharge under 11 U.S.C. §1328(b).            Section 1328(b)
      provides:

              Subject to subsection (d), at any time after the confirmation
              of the plan and after notice and a hearing, the court may
              grant a discharge to a debtor that has not completed payments
              under the plan only if–

              (1)     the debtor’s failure to complete such payments
                      is due to circumstances for which the debtor
                      should not justly be held accountable;

              (2)     the value, as of the effective date of the plan,
                      of property actually distributed under the plan
                      on account of each allowed unsecured claim is
                      not less than the amount that would have been
                      paid on such claim if the estate of the debtor
                      had been liquidated under chapter 7 of this
                      title on such date; and

              (3)     modification of the plan under section 1329 of
                      this title is not practicable.

              The Notice of Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case filed on June 30, 2010, was
      sent by the court to all parties in interest.     This included notice that
      September 27, 2010, was the deadline for filing a complaint to determine
      dischargeability of debts, including an action pursuant to 11 U.S.C.


                                   September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                         - Page 109 of 180 -
§ 523(a)(6). The confirmed Plan provided a minimum distribution for general
unsecured claims of 0.0%.

        Debtor contends that he meets all three requirements. In May 2011,
Debtor received a lay-off notice from his employer, the City of Colusa. Debtor
is receiving unemployment benefits of $450.00 per week, or an average of $1950
per month. This is significantly less than the $4,559.00 gross income figure
reported on Schedule I. As the lay-off notice demonstrates, Debtor’s position
was eliminated because of budget cuts; he was not dismissed for performance-
based reasons.

        The Plan distributes at least as much as if the Estate had been
liquidated. There were no nonexempt assets to distribute and the Debtor’s Plan
has distributed $0.00 to general unsecured creditors through the Plan, an
amount equal to what was proposed.

        The Chapter 13 Trustee opposes the motion arguing that Debtor has
failed to show that modifying the plan is not practicable. See 11 U.S.C.
§ 1328(b)(3).  Debtor argues that with the reduction in income, he can no
longer afford his $405.15 plan payment.     Debtor’s declaration fails to
describe, however, his efforts in finding new employment — a condition for
receiving unemployment benefits — and the relative chances of finding
employment.

        Further, the Chapter 13 Plan in this case contains an additional
feature – Class two treatment of a claim held by “Specialized Loan Servicer”
and secured by the Debtor’s residence.      Through the Plan the Debtor were
seeking to pay $0.00 on this claim and then have the lien released when the
plan was completed. The requested hardship discharge does not constitute an
amendment to the plan or a determination that the Chapter 13 plan was
completed. It is the completion of the plan (the new contract between the
parties) which satisfies the obligation secured by the lien. Once the secured
obligation has been satisfied, the lien is released by the creditor. In re
Frazier, 448 B.R. 803, 810 (Bankr. E.D. Cal 2011).      The obligation is not
satisfied and the lien cannot be ordered released merely because a debtor
obtains a discharge in a bankruptcy case. Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410 (1992).

        Based on the evidentiary record currently before it, the court finds
that Debtor has not met the standard for a hardship discharge. The motion is
denied without prejudice.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

               The Motion for Entry of a Hardship Discharge filed by
        Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS   ORDERED   that    the     Motion       is   denied   without
        prejudice.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 110 of 180 -
75.   08-36470-E-13   RAYMOND GOODWIN                      MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
      PGM-4           Peter G. Macaluso                    8-15-11 [63]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
      parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      August 15, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 36 days’ notice was provided.
      35 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). The failure
      of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
      least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Confirm the Modified Plan is granted.           No appearance required.

              11 U.S.C. § 1329 permits a debtor to modify a plan after confirmation.
      The modified Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and is confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
              Chapter 13 Plan filed on August 15, 2011, is confirmed, and
              counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
              confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
              the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
              approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
              order to the court.




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 111 of 180 -
76.   10-44970-E-13   LENA WALKER                          MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
      GW-1            Gerald L. White                      8-16-11 [34]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
      parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      August 16, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 35 days’ notice was provided.
      35 days’ notice is required.

      Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). The Trustee
      having filed an opposition, the court will address the merits of the motion at
      the hearing.   If it appears at the hearing that disputed material factual
      issues remain to be resolved, a later evidentiary hearing will be set. Local
      Bankr. R. 9014-1(g).

      The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Confirm the Modified
      Plan. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing,
      where the parties shall address the issues identified in this tentative ruling
      and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s
      resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final
      ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and conclusions of
      law:

               11 U.S.C. § 1329 permits a debtor to modify a plan after confirmation.
      The Chapter 13 Trustee opposes confirmation of the Plan on the basis Debtor
      does not have the ability to make the plan payments. According to Schedule J,
      Debtor was to pay $25.00 per month toward post-petition attorneys’ fees. Over
      the last 11 months, Debtor should have paid $275.00 in post-petition attorneys’
      fees. However, disclosures filed with the court indicate that Debtor has paid
      $2,070.00 over that period of time:

      Date of Post-Petition Payment            Amount of Post-Petition Payment
      Disclosure By Attorney for the           Disclosed and Date of Payment
      Debtors
      December 7, 2010                         $200.00
      Attorney Disclosure,                     Paid on December 6, 2010
      Dckt. 18.
      January 14, 2011 Attorney                $200.00
      Disclosure                               Paid on January 14, 2011
      Dckt. 20
      March 4, 2011 Attorney Disclosure        $200.00
      Dckt. 22                                 Paid on March 4, 2011
      March 10, 2011 Attorney Disclosure       $500.00
      Dckt. 24                                 Paid on March 9, 2011


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 112 of 180 -
April 5, 2011 Attorney Disclosure        $220.00
Dckt. 26                                 Paid on April 4, 2011
July 21, 2011 Attorney Disclosure        $750.00
Dckt. 30                                 Paid on July 8, 2011

        Debtor opposes the motion and points out that Debtor has not missed a
plan payment and that her income has not significantly changed since this case
was filed. The confirmed plan proposes to pay holders of unsecured claims not
less than $0.60 on the dollar.

        Debtor also suggests that the $25.00 monthly figure accurately
represents the monthly average over the life of the case. To make the higher
payments on the attorneys’ fees, she allegedly minimized other expenses. No
evidence in support of these arguments is offered. Further, to accept such a
contention would have the court authorize debtors to affirmatively misstate
their expenses.

        During the period from September 2007 (commencement of this case)
through the July 2011 payment (10 months), counsel for the Debtors received
$2,070.00 in post-petition payments. Based on the Debtor’s statements under
penalty of perjury on Schedule J, there should have been only $275.00. This
indicates that the Debtor actually had at least an additional $186.00 a month
in projected disposable income ($2,070.00 in post-petition monies to pay
attorney, minus the $275.00 of $25.00 a month payments disclosed = $1,795.00
of undisclosed disposable income, which averages $179.50 a month over the 10-
month period). For the 60-month plan, this equals an additional $10,770.00
which should be paid through the plan.

        The modified Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a)
and is not confirmed.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
        Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
        and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 113 of 180 -
77.   10-46370-E-13   DARREN/SANDRA STOWES                 MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
      TJW-7           Timothy J. Walsh                     7-26-11 [90]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtors, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
      parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      July 26, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 56 days’ notice was provided. 42
      days’ notice is required.

      Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The Trustee
      having filed an opposition, the court will address the merits of the motion at
      the hearing.   If it appears at the hearing that disputed material factual
      issues remain to be resolved, a later evidentiary hearing will be set. Local
      Bankr. R. 9014-1(g).

      The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Confirm the Amended
      Plan. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing,
      where the parties shall address the issues identified in this tentative ruling
      and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s
      resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final
      ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and conclusions of
      law:

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. The Trustee opposes confirmation arguing that the Debtors are
      $9,886.00 delinquent in plan payments, which represents more than one month of
      the $6,047.00 plan payment. This is strong evidence that the Debtor cannot
      afford the plan payments or abide by the Plan and is cause to deny
      confirmation. 11 U.S.C. §1325(a)(6).

              The amended Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
      is not confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
              and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 114 of 180 -
78.   06-21071-E-13   NOEL/LEA MANUEL                      MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DISCHARGE
      SDB-2           W. Scott de Bie                      8-12-11 [93]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 12, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
      Office of the United States Trustee, and other parties of interest. By the
      court’s calculation, 39 days’ notice was provided.

      Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-
      1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion.         Cf.
      Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
      will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
      hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
      Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
      interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
      court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.              No appearance required.

              With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
      provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
      competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed
      on July 14, 2011, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R.
      Bankr. P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee
      was entered on September 7, 2011 (Dckt. 98). The entry of an order approving
      the final report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See
      In re Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

              The Debtors’ Declaration certifies that the Debtors:

              1. have completed the plan payments,
              2. do not have any delinquent domestic support obligations,
              3. have completed a financial management course and filed the
              certificate with the court,
              4. have not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7,
              11, or 12 during the four-year period prior to filing of this
              case or a discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-
              year period prior to filing of this case,
              5. are not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1),
              and
              6. are not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11
              U.S.C. § 522(q)(1).

      There being no objection, the Debtors are entitled to a discharge.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 115 of 180 -
              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
              Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
              shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.


79.   11-35271-E-13   DARREN LAIWA                         MOTION TO CONFIRM PLAN
      MLA-1           Mitchell Abdallah                    8-8-11 [25]



      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 8, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on the Chapter 13 Trustee,
      other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
      court’s calculation, 43 days’ notice was provided.

      Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The Trustee
      having filed an opposition, the court will address the merits of the motion.

      The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Confirm the Amended
      Plan. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing,
      where the parties shall address the issues identified in this tentative ruling
      and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s
      resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final
      ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and conclusions of
      law:

              11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
      confirmation. The debtor is delinquent to the Trustee in the amount of
      $2,196.00. Before this motion will be heard, an additional plan payment in the
      amount of $1,530.95 will also be due. The debtor does not appear to be able
      to make the plan payments proposed as required pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
      1325(a)(6).

              The amended Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
      is not confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.



                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 116 of 180 -
                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
              and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.


80.   11-36871-E-13   RAYMOND CLIFFORD AND                 OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION OF
      NLE-1           RHONDA WILSON                        PLAN BY DAVID CUSICK
                      David Ndudim                         8-18-11 [20]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(2) Motion.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 18, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Debtor’s
      Attorney, Chapter 13 Trustee, other parties in interest, and Office of the
      United States Trustee.   By the court’s calculation, 33 days’ notice was
      provided.

      Tentative Ruling: The Objection to the Plan was properly set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(2) and the procedure
      authorized by General Order 05-03, Paragraph 3(c). Consequently, the Debtor,
      the Trustee, the U.S. Trustee, and any other parties in interest were not
      required to file a written response or opposition to the motion. If any of
      these potential respondents appear at the hearing and offers opposition to the
      motion, the court will set a briefing schedule and a final hearing unless there
      is no need to develop the record further. If no opposition is offered at the
      hearing, the court will take up the merits of the motion. Below is the court’s
      tentative ruling, rendered on the assumption that there will be no opposition
      to the motion. Obviously, if there is opposition, the court may reconsider
      this tentative ruling.

      The court’s tentative decision is to sustain the Objection. Oral argument may
      be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing, where the parties shall
      address the issues identified in this tentative ruling and such other issues
      as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s resolution of the matter. If
      the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final ruling, the court will make the
      following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

              The Chapter 13 Trustee opposes confirmation of the Plan on the
      following bases:

              1. The debtors failed to appear at the duly noticed first
              Meeting of Creditors on August 11, 2011 (the Meeting of
              Creditors has been continued to October 20, 2011).         The
              Trustee will not recommend confirmation of a plan prior to a
              thorough examination of the debtors at the meeting of
              creditors. The debtors failed to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 343.

              2. The Trustee is unable to fully assess the feasibility of
              the plan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(6) as the debtors

                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 117 of 180 -
failed to provide the Trustee with copies of their payment
advices or other evidence of income received within the sixty
day period prior to the filing of the petition. The debtors
have failed to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(1)(B)(iv).

3. The debtors failed to provide the Trustee with a complete
copy of a tax return for the most recent year a tax return was
filed. The debtors have failed to comply with 11 U.S.C. §
521(e)(2)(A)(I).

4. The debtors propose to value the collateral of Ditech Home
Mortgage, but have failed to file a motion to value
collateral. The feasibility of the plan depends, in part, on
the success of its outcome. Accordingly, the plan fails to
comply with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(6).

5. On their Schedule D, debtors list Chrysler Financial as
holding a claim of $27,583.00 secured by a 2008 Dodge Ram.
The plan treats this claim in Class 4; however, since this
collateral may be valued, the plan should provide treatment
for this claim in Class 2. The plan fails to comply with 11
U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1).

6.   On their Schedule D, debtors list Heritage Community
Credit Union as holding a claim of $3,901.00 secured by a 2004
PT Cruiser. The plan treats this claim in Class 4; however,
since this collateral may be valued, the plan should provide
treatment for this claim in Class 2. The plan fails to comply
with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1).

7. The plan fails to provide for the secured claim of Wachovia
Dealer Services. The plan fails to comply with 11 U.S.C. §
1325(a)(5)(A) or (B).

8.   On their Schedule D, debtors list 21st Century Home
Mortgage as holding a claim of $19,869.21 secured by a
manufactured home located at 3501 Bradshaw Road, Sacramento.
Debtors provide for this claim in Class 4; however, because
the loan will be satisfied during the life of the plan, the
proper designation for this claim is Class 2. The plan fails
to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1).

9. The proposed plan is not the debtors’ best effort pursuant
11 U.S.C. § 1325(b).     Debtors are above median income.
According to their Form 22, Line 59, debtors’ monthly
disposable income has a net excess income of $771.48. Based
on that information, general unsecured creditors should
receive $46,288.80 over the life of the plan. The proposed
plan, however, proposes to pay a dividend of .01% ($17.59) to
general unsecured creditors.

10.   Debtors propose to pay the ongoing mortgage on their
residence in class 4 of the plan, at an amount of $1,021.00


                    September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                          - Page 118 of 180 -
       per month. On their Schedule J, however, debtors list the
       ongoing monthly mortgage payment in the amount of $1,781.00.

       11. According to their Schedule I, debtors are repaying a
       401K loan in the amount of $302.51 per month but fail to
       provide information on when the loan was incurred or when it
       will be paid off.

       12. The debtors provide for 21st Century Mortgage in class 4
       to be paid outside of the plan in the amount of $612.00 per
       month. However, the debtors have failed to provide for this
       payment on their Schedule J.

       13. Debtors failed to provide complete information on their
       Schedule I, including the age of their dependents and
       employment information.

        The Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a).    The
objection is sustained and the Plan is not confirmed.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

       Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
       Civil Minutes for the hearing.

              The Objection to the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
       Trustee having been presented to the court, and upon review of
       the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
       appearing,

              IT IS ORDERED that Objection to confirmation of the
       Plan is sustained and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not
       confirmed.




                           September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                 - Page 119 of 180 -
81.   11-20572-E-13   JOHANNES GIORGISE                    CONTINUED MOTION TO CONFIRM
      MLA-6           Mitchell L. Abdallah                 PLAN
                                                           7-19-11 [100]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on July 19, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on the Chapter 13 Trustee,
      other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
      court’s calculation, 42 days’ notice was provided.

      Final Ruling: The Objection to the Plan was properly set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1) and the procedure
      authorized by General Order 05-03, Paragraph 3(c). Consequently, the Debtor,
      the Trustee, the U.S. Trustee, and any other parties in interest were not
      required to file a written response or opposition to the motion. The court has
      determined that oral argument will be not be of assistance in resolving this
      matter.   No oral argument will be presented and the court shall issue its
      ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

      The Motion is denied as moot.     No appearance required.

              Subsequent to the filing of this Motion, the Debtor filed a first
      amended Plan on August 29, 2011.   The filing of a new plan is a de facto
      withdrawal of the pending Plan. The motion is denied as moot.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                      IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Confirm is denied as
              moot.




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 120 of 180 -
82.   09-38973-E-13   MELODY QUENZER                       MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
      EJS-3           Eric John Schwab                     8-4-11 [58]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 4, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on the Chapter 13 Trustee,
      other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
      court’s calculation, 47 days’ notice was provided.

      Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). The Trustee
      having filed an opposition, the court will address the merits of the motion.

      The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Confirm the Modified
      Plan. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing,
      where the parties shall address the issues identified in this tentative ruling
      and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s
      resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final
      ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and conclusions of
      law:

              11 U.S.C. § 1329 permits a debtor to modify a plan after confirmation.
      According to the Trustee, the proposed plan does not authorize payment made by
      the Trustee to creditor Vision One Credit Union under the confirmed plan. The
      creditor has been paid $913.67 on its unsecured claim.          The additional
      provisions of the plan provide that this creditor shall be paid outside of the
      plan by the debtor’s corporation.

              The modified Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a)
      and is not confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
              and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 121 of 180 -
83.   10-26175-E-13   BRENDA CALHOUN                       MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
      SDB-6           W. Scott de Bie                      8-5-11 [99]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 5, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on the Chapter 13 Trustee,
      other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
      court’s calculation, 46 days’ notice was provided.

      Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
      Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). The Trustee
      having filed an opposition, the court will address the merits of the motion.

      The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Confirm the Modified
      Plan. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing,
      where the parties shall address the issues identified in this tentative ruling
      and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s
      resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final
      ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and conclusions of
      law:

              11 U.S.C. § 1329 permits a debtor to modify a plan after confirmation.
      The Trustee filed an opposition on September 6, 2011 (Dckt. 109). Through his
      opposition, the Trustee calculates that the plan will take approximately sixty-
      seven (67) months to complete which exceeds the maximum length of sixty (60)
      months pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(d)(1) and results in a commitment period
      that exceeds the permissible limit imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(4). The
      Trustee asserts that the additional time is a result of the modified plan
      proposing to provide for Charles Lomeli as a Class 2 creditor regarding a tax
      lien for real property. Debtors’ modified plan provides for this creditor as
      having a claim in the amount of $1,850.96; however, the Proof of Claim filed
      by this creditor indicates a secured claim in the amount of $3,684.17.

              Furthermore, the modified plan does not provide for Charles Lomeli Tax
      Collector regarding a tax lien for other certain real property.        Debtors
      previously confirmed plan provides for this creditor in class 2 with a claim
      amount of $3,472.98, with a monthly dividend of $102.09 and an interest rate
      of 18%. The Trustee asserts that he is uncertain of the treatment of this
      creditor.

              The debtor filed a reply on September 13, 2011 (Dckt. 12), whereby she
      agrees with the Trustee’s opposition and states that she will file a modified
      plan.

              The modified Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a)
      and is not confirmed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:



                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 122 of 180 -
              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
              Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
              and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.


84.   08-35876-E-13   LINDA BRISTOW                        MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DISCHARGE
      CYB-3           Candace Y. Brooks                    8-4-11 [59]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 4, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
      Office of the United States Trustee, and other parties of interest. By the
      court’s calculation, 47 days’ notice was provided.

      Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-
      1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion.         Cf.
      Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
      will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
      hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
      Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
      interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
      court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.              No appearance required.

              With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
      provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
      competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed
      on May 6, 2011, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R. Bankr.
      P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee was
      entered on June 11, 2011 (Dckt. 58). The entry of an order approving the final
      report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See In re
      Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

              The Debtor’s Declaration certifies that the Debtor:

              1. has completed the plan payments,
              2. does not have any delinquent domestic support obligations,
              3. has completed a financial management course and filed the
              certificate with the court,
              4. has not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7, 11,
              or 12 during the four-year period prior to filing of this case

                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 123 of 180 -
              or a discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-year
              period prior to filing of this case,
              5. is not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1),
              and
              6. is not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11
              U.S.C. § 522(q)(1).

      There being no objection, the Debtor is entitled to a discharge.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
              Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
              the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
              appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
              shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.


85.   11-37476-E-13   JUAN/ELENA JAIME                     MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      TOG-1           Thomas O. Gillis                     BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
                                                           8-23-11 [16]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      and Office of the United States Trustee on August 23, 2011. By the court’s
      calculation, 28 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.



                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 124 of 180 -
        The motion is accompanied by the Debtors’ declaration. The Debtors are
the owners of the subject real property commonly known as 1270 Salt Creek
Drive, Arbuckle, California. The Debtors seek to value the property at a fair
market value of $88,000.00 as of the petition filing date. As the owner, the
Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid.
701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173
(9th Cir. 2004).

        The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
$122,000.00. Bank of America, N.A.’s second deed of trust secures a loan with
a balance of approximately $60,000.00. Therefore, the respondent creditor’s
claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-collateralized.
The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount of $0.00, and
therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under the terms of any
confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending Corp. (In re
Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift (In re Lam),
211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant to Federal
Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
        Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
        of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
        cause appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
        § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Bank of America, N.A.
        secured by a second trust deed recorded against the real
        property commonly known as 1270 Salt Creek Drive, Arbuckle,
        California, is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the
        balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
        the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 125 of 180 -
86.   11-37476-E-13   JUAN/ELENA JAIME                     MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      TOG-3           Thomas O. Gillis                     WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
                                                           8-23-11 [22]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      and Office of the United States Trustee on August 23, 2011. By the court’s
      calculation, 28 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtors’ declaration. The Debtors are
      the owners of the subject real property commonly known as 1270 Salt Creek
      Drive, Arbuckle, California. The Debtors seek to value the property at a fair
      market value of $88,000.00 as of the petition filing date. As the owner, the
      Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid.
      701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173
      (9th Cir. 2004).

               The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
      $122,000.00. The second deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of
      approximately $60,000.00. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s third deed of trust secures
      a loan with a balance of approximately $10,000.00. Therefore, the respondent
      creditor’s claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-
      collateralized. The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount
      of $0.00, and therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under
      the terms of any confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending
      Corp. (In re Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift
      (In re Lam), 211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant
      to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 126 of 180 -
              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
              Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
              of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
              cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
              secured by a second trust deed recorded against the real
              property commonly known as 1270 Salt Creek Drive, Arbuckle,
              California, is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the
              balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
              the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.


87.   11-38977-E-13   JOSEPH/LISA TARANGO                  MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      CFH-1           Curt F. Hennecke                     CHASE HOME FINANCE
                                                           8-12-11 [14]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      Office of the United States Trustee, and other parties of interest on August
      12, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 39 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’
      notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtor’s declaration. The Debtors are
      the owners of the subject real property commonly known as 250 Sage Sparrow
      Circle, Vacaville, California. The Debtor seeks to value the property at a
      fair market value of $385,000.00 as of the petition filing date. As the owner,
      the Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R.



                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 127 of 180 -
Evid. 701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d
1165, 1173 (9th Cir. 2004).

         The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
$585,100.00. Chase Home Finance, LLC’s second deed of trust secures a loan
with a balance of approximately $67,000.00.         Therefore, the respondent
creditor’s claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-
collateralized. The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount
of $0.00, and therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under
the terms of any confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending
Corp. (In re Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift
(In re Lam), 211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant
to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
        Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
        of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
        cause appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
        § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Chase Home Finance, LLC
        secured by a second trust deed recorded against the real
        property commonly known as 250 Sage Sparrow Circle, Vacaville,
        California, is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the
        balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
        the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 128 of 180 -
88.   11-38977-E-13   JOSEPH/LISA TARANGO                  MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      CFH-2           Curt F. Hennecke                     WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL BANK
                                                           8-12-11 [19]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 12, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
      respondent creditor, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the court’s
      calculation, 39 days’ notice was provided.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-
      1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion.        Cf.
      Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The court has determined
      that oral argument will not be of assistance in resolving this matter. No oral
      argument will be presented and the court shall issue its ruling from the
      pleadings filed by the parties.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is denied without prejudice.            No appearance
      required.

               The motion is accompanied by the Debtor’s declaration. The Debtor is
      the owner of a couch and bedroom set. The Debtor seeks to value the property
      at a replacement value of $300.00 as of the petition filing date. As the owner,
      the Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R.
      Evid. 701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d
      1165, 1173 (9th Cir. 2004).

              The perfected security interest against the property has a balance of
      approximately $1,600.00. Though the Motion seeks to have the court determine
      the value of a claim held by Wells Fargo Financial Bank, a proof of claim has
      been filed which identifies the actual creditor to be Wells Fargo Financial
      California, Inc. Proof of Claim No. 6. Therefore, it appears that the Motion
      seeks to value a non-existent claim. The court cannot, and will not, issue an
      order purporting to value a secured claim pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) of a
      creditor who is not named in the Motion. FN.1.

          --------------------------------------------------------------------
      FN.1. Additionally, “Wells Fargo Financial Bank” does not seem to be an entity
      listed with a government agency. The California Secretary of State names a
      number of Wells Fargo entities including: Wells Fargo Financial, Inc., Wells
      Fargo Financial Agency, Co., Wells Fargo Financial Leasing, Inc., Wells Fargo
      Financial National Bank, etc.     The court does not guess as to the real
      creditor. Because correctly identifying the party whose rights are being
      affected by a motion is essential to due process, and a relatively
      straightforward task for Movant, the court is not inclined to engage in
      extensive legal gymnastics to try and fashion a justification for granting the
      relief requested.   Correctly identifying the target party is essential to
      obtaining an order which will not be subject to time and resource wasting


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 129 of 180 -
      attack at a later date. Further, the court will not waste its time in issuing
      orders that on their face name an entity which clearly does not exist.
          --------------------------------------------------------------------

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
              Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
              of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
              cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 506(a) is denied without prejudice.


89.   11-27278-E-13   YOLANDA PROCOPIO                     MOTION TO CONFIRM PLAN
      YP-1            Pro Se                               8-1-11 [27]

             CASE DISMISSED 9-8-11


      Final Ruling: The case having previously been dismissed, the Motion is denied
      as moot.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Confirm having been presented to the
              court, the case having been previously dismissed, and upon
              review of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and
              good cause appearing,

                      IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is denied as moot.




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 130 of 180 -
90.   10-40079-E-13   GRIGOR/ANAHIT MOVSESYAN               CONTINUED MOTION TO APPROVE
      PGM-2           Peter G. Macaluso                     LOAN MODIFICATION
                                                            8-8-11 [51]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
      parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      August 8, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 29 days’ notice was provided. 28
      days’ notice is required.

      Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Approve a Loan Modification was properly set
      for hearing on the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1) and
      General Order 05-03, ¶ 10(e). The Chapter 13 Trustee filed opposition. If it
      appears at the hearing that disputed material factual issues remain to be
      resolved, a later evidentiary hearing will be set. Local Bankr. R. 9014-1(g).
      This matter was continued from September 6, 2011. Nothing further has been
      filed in this matter.

      The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Approve the Loan
      Modification. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled
      hearing, where the parties shall address the issues identified in this
      tentative ruling and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the
      court’s resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its
      final ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and
      conclusions of law:

              BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, whose claim the plan provides for in
      Class 3, has agreed to a loan modification which provides the following:

              a.      The modified loan payments will be computed from July 1, 2011.

              b.      The new principal balance under the modified loan will be
                      $446,576.87.

              c.      The monthly payment shall be $1,358.41 for a period of sixty
                      months, with interest at the rate of 2% per annum simple
                      interest.

              d.      The monthly payment increases to $1,578.15 on July 1, 2016,
                      with interest at the rate of 3% per annum simple interest.

              e.      The monthly payment increases to $1,810.11 on July 1, 2017,
                      with interest at 4% per annum.

              f.      The mortgage payments are amortized over 480 months (40 years).

              g.      Notwithstanding the 480-month amortization of the loan
                      payments, the entire balance of principal and any interest
                      comes due in full on May 1, 2035 (34 years).



                                   September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                         - Page 131 of 180 -
        The interest rate on the current loan is 6% per annum. Under the
existing loan, there is $44,596.24 in delinquent interest and $5,929.20 in
delinquent escrow payments will be added to the principal of the modified loan.

        The Trustee has filed an opposition, stating that under the confirmed
plan provides for the surrender of this property. Schedule J provides that the
Debtors’ housing expense is $1,200.00 a month, which is less than the payments
under the modified loan. Thus, it does not appear that the Debtors can make
the plan payments and payments on the modified home mortgage.

        The Debtors’ response, unsupported by evidence is that the Debtors
intend to rent the property to family members who will pay between $1,400 and
$1,500 a month rent. No explanation of the Debtors’ current finances or how
the $1,300 to $1,500 of income impacts the current plan.

        In addition to having to support a future motion with evidence of the
Debtors’ finances and impact of the Debtors taking on this obligation, they
will have to amend their plan to provide for the payment of this obligation.
As of now, the plan requires them to surrender the property to the creditor,
not take on new payments to retain the property.

        The motion is denied without prejudice.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion to Approve the Loan Modification filed by
        the Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon
        review of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and
        good cause appearing,

               IT IS   ORDERED   that    the     Motion       is   denied   without
        prejudice.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 132 of 180 -
91.   11-37279-E-13   CLARENCE/LINDSEY BARRETT             OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION OF
      NLE-1           Justin K. Kuney                      PLAN BY DAVID CUSICK
                                                           8-25-11 [23]



      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(2) Motion.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 25, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Debtor (pro se),
      Debtor’s Attorney, Chapter 13 Trustee, other parties in interest, and Office
      of the United States Trustee. By the court’s calculation, 26 days’ notice was
      provided.

      Tentative Ruling: The Objection to the Plan was properly set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(2) and the procedure
      authorized by General Order 05-03, Paragraph 3(c). Consequently, the Debtor,
      the Trustee, the U.S. Trustee, and any other parties in interest were not
      required to file a written response or opposition to the motion. If any of
      these potential respondents appear at the hearing and offers opposition to the
      motion, the court will set a briefing schedule and a final hearing unless there
      is no need to develop the record further. If no opposition is offered at the
      hearing, the court will take up the merits of the motion. Below is the court’s
      tentative ruling, rendered on the assumption that there will be no opposition
      to the motion. Obviously, if there is opposition, the court may reconsider
      this tentative ruling.

      The court’s tentative decision is to sustain the Objection. Oral argument may
      be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing, where the parties shall
      address the issues identified in this tentative ruling and such other issues
      as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s resolution of the matter. If
      the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final ruling, the court will make the
      following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

              The Chapter 13 Trustee opposes confirmation of the Plan on the basis
      that the debtors list the claim of Hearthstone Owners Association
      (“Hearthstone”) at $0.00. Debtors have filed an Attachment M-3 Motion to
      Value Hearthstone at $0.00. A certificate of service has been provided for the
      notice of the motion to value having been served on July 26, 2011.

              Hearthstone has filed a claim, but has not identify the collateral for
      its claim. In section 4 of the proof of claim form it is stated that this is
      a claim secured by real property, but neither the real property of the amount
      of the secured portion of the claim specified. Proof of Claim No. 4.        The
      debtors’ Schedule J reflects an expense for future homeowner’s association dues
      as they intend to retain the property.       The Trustee cannot determine the
      feasibility of the plan without more information about the secured or unsecured
      status of the claim.

              The notice of the motion to value provides no information as to the
      property, what is to be determined by the motion, or the effect of the motion
      if granted. It merely states “You are hereby notified that Debtors Clarence
      Mario Barrett, III and Lindsey Morgan Barrett have filed a proposed Chapter 13
      [presumably the Debtors mean to say ‘Chapter 13 Plan’], which includes a Motion

                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 133 of 180 -
Seeking to Value Respondent’s collateral.” The notice fails to identify the
property, the creditor whose claim is to be valued, that a claim is to be
valued. Rather, the notice merely states that someone’s collateral will be
valued in the abstract, for which there is no stated legal significance.
Merely because the name “Hearthstone Owners Association” is listed in the
caption on the pleading does not state which creditor and claim is the subject
of the motion.

        This minimalist, generic pleading is misleading and insufficient.
Because the motion to value the secured claim of Hearthstone Owners Association
cannot be granted, the plan cannot be confirmed.

Accordingly, the plan fails to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(6).

        The Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a).       The
objection is sustained and the Plan is not confirmed.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Objection to the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
        Trustee having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that Objection to confirmation of the
        Plan is sustained and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not
        confirmed.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 134 of 180 -
92.   11-37979-E-13   RANDY/KELLEY PETERSON                MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      CK-1            Catherine King                       HSBC/BENEFICIAL
                                                           8-5-11 [16]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent
      creditor, and Office of the United States Trustee on August 5, 2011. By the
      court’s calculation, 46 days’ notice was provided.       28 days’ notice is
      required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtors’ declaration. The Debtors are
      the owners of the subject real property commonly known as 1060 Gray Pine Way,
      Shasta Lake, California. The Debtors seek to value the property at a fair
      market value of $140,000 as of the petition filing date. As the owner, the
      Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid.
      701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173
      (9th Cir. 2004).

               The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
      $208,476.00. Beneficial California, Inc.’s second deed of trust secures a loan
      with a balance of approximately $72,717.00.         Therefore, the respondent
      creditor’s claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-
      collateralized. The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount
      of $0.00, and therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under
      the terms of any confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending
      Corp. (In re Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift
      (In re Lam), 211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant
      to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 135 of 180 -
              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
              Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
              of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
              cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
              § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Beneficial California,
              Inc. secured by a second trust deed recorded against the real
              property commonly known as 1060 Gray Pine Way, Shasta Lake,
              California, is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the
              balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
              the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.


93.   08-24380-E-13   JAMES/SUSAN LEON                     CONTINUED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
      DN-1            Dan Nelson                           DISCHARGE
                                                           7-27-11 [43]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtors, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
      parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
      July 17, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 65 days’ notice was provided. 28
      days’ notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).

      The hearing on the Motion for an Entry of Discharge is continued to 2:00 p.m.
      on October 18, 2011, to allow for entry of an order approving the Trustee’s
      final report and account. No appearance required.

              With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
      provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
      competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed
      on September 14, 2011, and parties may file an objection within 30 days. See
      Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5009. Therefore, the court continues this hearing to allow
      that 30-day period to run and for entry of an order approving the report.

              The hearing on the Motion for an Entry of Discharge is continued to
      2:00 p.m. on October 18, 2011.




                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 136 of 180 -
94.   09-44280-E-13   STEVEN/JENNIFER REA                  CONTINUED MOTION TO DISMISS
      NLE-3           Stephen J. Johnson                   CASE
                                                           7-28-11 [62]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Debtors and Debtors’ Attorney on July 28,
      2011. By the court’s calculation, 34 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’
      notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Dismiss has been set for hearing on the notice
      required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the respondent
      and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least 14 days prior
      to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is
      considered to be the equivalent of a statement of nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali
      v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).

              This matter was continued from August 31, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. with a
      briefing schedule. The court issued the following directives:

              1. The Debtors shall file and serve supplemental pleadings on
              or before September 12, 2011, and the Trustee and other
              parties in interest shall file replies, if any, on or before
              September 17, 2011.

              2. The court shall consider whether sanctions, if any, are
              appropriate for the debtors’ and counsel’s failure to provide
              any evidence in support of the opposition to the Motion. Any
              evidence and arguments that the debtors and counsel wish to
              submit on this issue and replies shall be submitted on or
              before September 12, 2011.

      Nothing further has been filed in this matter.

      The Motion to Dismiss is granted and the case is dismissed.            No appearance
      required.

              The Chapter 13 Trustee seeks to dismiss this bankruptcy on the basis
      that Debtors are in material default. 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(7). The Trustee
      offers evidence that the plan will require more than the 60-month statutory
      limit to complete. See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(d) and Ch. 13 Plan § 6.03. The plan
      proposes to pay the secured claim held by the SAFE Credit Union $3,886.69 less
      than the amount reported on the proof of claim. Debtors’ motion to value the
      claim was denied without prejudice in August 2010 and Debtors failed to timely
      file a renewed motion.    The plan payment is insufficient to fully pay the
      allowed secured claim within 60 months.

              The court shall issue an order to show cause as to why counsel should
      not be sanctioned $1,000.00 for filing pleadings which do not comport to the
      obligations of an attorney under Fed. R. Bank. P. 9011. The Federal Rules of
      Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and Local Bankruptcy
      Rules are not merely suggestions which a party may violate with impunity. In

                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 137 of 180 -
this case, as stated in the minutes from the August 31, 2011 hearing, “Counsel
[for the Debtors] appeared at the hearing and pled with the court not to
dismiss the case. The Debtors have filed a motion to value which has been sent
[sic] for hearing on September 20, 2011.” In continuing the hearing the court
ordered counsel to file supplemental pleadings in support of any opposition to
the motion to dismiss, explain why he failed to file an opposition or evidence
in opposition to the motion, and why sanctions should not be ordered for
failing to comply with the basic pleading requirements under the Local Rules
for this District. As with any “opposition” to the motion to dismiss, counsel
has failed to respond to the order of the court to file supplemental pleadings.

        Cause exists to dismiss this case.         The motion is granted and the case
is dismissed. FN.1.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
FN.1. The court continued the hearing to allow counsel to address his failure
to file any opposition to the motion to dismiss and limit any potential
prejudice to the Debtors who had a confirmed plan in this case. Though the
court has attempted to prevent such prejudice, it cannot ignore the conduct of
counsel and failure to provide even a minimal response.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion to Dismiss the Chapter 13 case filed by the
        Chapter 13 Trustee having been presented to the court, and
        upon review of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel,
        and good cause appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is granted and
        the case is dismissed.

               The   court  shall   retain   jurisdiction   over  the
        administration of this case and the conduct of counsel until
        the Clerk is ordered by the court to close the file. The file
        shall not be closed except upon further order of the court.
        The court shall issue an order to show cause why counsel for
        the Debtors is not sanctioned $1,000.00.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 138 of 180 -
95.   09-44280-E-13   STEVEN/JENNIFER REA                  MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      SJJ-3           Stephen J. Johnson                   SAFE CREDIT UNION
                                                           8-19-11 [68]


      Final Ruling: The case having previously been dismissed, the Motion is denied
      as moot.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Value a Secured Claim having been
              presented to the court, the case having been previously
              dismissed, and upon review of the pleadings, evidence,
              arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is denied as moot, the
              case having previously been dismissed.


96.   08-26781-E-13   JENNIFER BECKWITH                    CONTINUED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
      WW-2            Mark A. Wolff                        DISCHARGE
                                                           7-29-11 [69]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on July 29, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
      Office of the United States Trustee, and other parties of interest. By the
      court’s calculation, 53 days’ notice was provided.

      Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-
      1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion.         Cf.
      Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
      will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
      hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
      Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
      interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
      court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.              No appearance required.

              With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
      provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
      competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed
      on July 15, 2011, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R.

                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 139 of 180 -
Bankr. P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee
was entered on September 3, 2011 (Dckt. 76). The entry of an order approving
the final report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See
In re Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

        The Debtor’s Declaration certifies that the Debtor:

        1. has completed the plan payments,
        2. does not have any delinquent domestic support obligations,
        3. has completed a financial management course and filed the
        certificate with the court,
        4. has not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7, 11,
        or 12 during the four-year period prior to filing of this case
        or a discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-year
        period prior to filing of this case,
        5. is not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1),
        and
        6. is not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11
        U.S.C. § 522(q)(1).

There being no objection, the Debtor is entitled to a discharge.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
        Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
        shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 140 of 180 -
97.   10-41281-E-13   DALE/TONIE JENKINS                    CONTINUED MOTION TO DISMISS
      LJL-1           Anthony J. Kassas                     CASE FOR UNREASONABLE DELAY
                                                            THAT IS PREJUDICIAL TO
                                                            CREDITORS AND/OR MOTION TO
                                                            DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO
                                                            MAKE PLAN PAYMENTS AND/OR
                                                            MOTION/APPLICATION TO DISMISS
                                                            CASE/PROCEEDING
                                                            6-1-11 [107]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(2) Motion.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on June 1, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Debtors, Debtors’
      Attorney, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the court’s calculation,
      42 days’ notice was provided.

      Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Dismiss was properly set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(2).      Consequently, the
      creditors, the Trustee, the U.S. Trustee, and any other parties in interest
      were not required to file a written response or opposition to the motion.
      Opposition was offered at the initial hearing and the Debtors filed
      supplemental opposition. This matter continued most recently from August 31,
      2011 at 10:00 a.m. The debtors were attempting to engage new counsel because
      their attorney went out of business. A Motion to Substitute Attorney was filed
      on September 12, 2011 (Dckt. 130).

      The court’s tentative decision is to grant the Motion to Dismiss and dismiss
      the case.   Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled
      hearing, where the parties shall address the issues identified in this
      tentative ruling and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the
      court’s resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its
      final ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and
      conclusions of law:

              The Trustee seeks dismissal of the case on the basis that the Debtors
      are $5,262.42 delinquent in plan payments, which represents more than one month
      of the $4,267.21 plan payment. Failure to make plan payments is unreasonable
      delay which is prejudicial to creditors. 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(1).

               Debtors oppose the motion on the basis that they will be current by the
      date of the August 31 hearing. This, however, is not evidence that Debtors are
      in fact current. Also, the Debtors do not offer an explanation as to how they
      can have extra income in the current months to make up a $5,262.42 default.

              The Trustee’s motion argues that the Debtors failed to file a Plan or
      a Motion to Confirm a Plan following the court’s denial of confirmation to
      Debtors’ prior plan on May 17, 2011. Debtors offer no explanation for the
      delay in setting the Plan for confirmation, though they represent that a new
      plan will be filed. No such plan has been filed. This is unreasonable delay
      which is prejudicial to creditors. 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(1).



                                   September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                         - Page 141 of 180 -
              Cause exists to dismiss this case.         The motion is granted and the case
      is dismissed.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

              Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
              Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                     The Motion to Dismiss the Chapter 13 case filed by the
              Chapter 13 Trustee having been presented to the court, and
              upon review of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel,
              and good cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is granted and
              the case is dismissed.


98.   11-34381-E-13   ALAN/PATRICIA JOHNSON                MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
      FF-1            Gary Ray Fraley                      SAFE CREDIT UNION
                                                           7-25-11 [19]



      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
      supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
      Office of the United States Trustee, and other parties of interest on July 25,
      2011. By the court’s calculation, 57 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’
      notice is required.

      Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
      notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
      9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
      nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
      because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
      party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
      Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
      defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
      review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
      matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
      from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
      determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.

              The motion is accompanied by the Debtors’ declaration. The Debtors are
      the owners of the subject real property commonly known as 913 Haggin Avenue,
      Sacramento, California.   The Debtors seek to value the property at a fair
      market value of $86,000.00 as of the petition filing date. As the owner, the


                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 142 of 180 -
Debtor’s opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid.
701; see also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173
(9th Cir. 2004).

        The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
$96,205.33. Safe Credit Union’s second deed of trust secures a loan with a
balance of approximately $17,482.00.     Therefore, the respondent creditor’s
claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-collateralized.
The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount of $0.00, and
therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under the terms of any
confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending Corp. (In re
Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift (In re Lam),
211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant to Federal
Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
        Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
        of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
        cause appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
        § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Safe Credit Union secured
        by a second trust deed recorded against the real property
        commonly known as 913 Haggin Avenue, Sacramento, California,
        is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the balance of the
        claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under the confirmed
        Chapter 13 Plan.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 143 of 180 -
99.   07-20282-E-13   SCOTT/REBECCA SMITH                  CONTINUED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
      WW-4            Mark A. Wolff                        DISCHARGE
                                                           7-19-11 [110]


      Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

      Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on July 19, 2011, states
      that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
      Office of the United States Trustee, and other parties of interest. By the
      court’s calculation, days’ notice was provided.

      Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
      the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
      respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
      14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-
      1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion.         Cf.
      Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
      will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
      hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
      Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
      interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
      court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

      The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.              No appearance required.

              With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
      provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
      competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed
      on August 10, 2011, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R.
      Bankr. P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee
      was entered on September 3, 2011 (Dckt. 119). The entry of an order approving
      the final report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See
      In re Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

              The Debtors’ Declaration certifies that the Debtors:

              1. have completed the plan payments,
              2. do not have any delinquent domestic support obligations,
              3. have completed a financial management course and filed the
              certificate with the court,
              4. have not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7,
              11, or 12 during the four-year period prior to filing of this
              case or a discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-
              year period prior to filing of this case,
              5. are not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1),
              and
              6. are not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11
              U.S.C. § 522(q)(1).

      There being no objection, the Debtors are entitled to a discharge.

      The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
      holding that:

                                  September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                        - Page 144 of 180 -
                Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
                Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                       The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
                Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
                the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
                appearing,

                       IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
                shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.


100. 10-52482-E-13     SEAN/JENNIFER BAUERS                  OBJECTION TO CLAIM OF CANDICA
     FEC-1             Fredrick E. Clement                   L.L.C., CLAIM NUMBER 14
                                                             7-27-11 [55]


     Local Rule 3007-1(c)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Not Provided.    The Proof of Service filed on July 27, 2011,
     states that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Candica LLC, c/o
     Weinstein and Riley, PS. Nothing in the record states that Candica LLC or its
     agent for service of process were served. By the court’s calculation, 55 days’
     notice was provided.

     Final Ruling: This Objection to a Proof of Claim has been set for hearing on
     the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 3007-1(c)(1) and General Order 05-
     03, Paragraph6. The failure of the respondent and other parties in interest
     to file written opposition at least 14 days prior to the hearing as required
     by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the
     granting of the motion. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).
     Further, because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by
     the moving party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re
     Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 2006).        Therefore, the defaults of the
     respondent and other parties in interest are entered, the matter will be
     resolved without oral argument and the court will issue its ruling from the
     parties’ pleadings.

     The Objection to Proof of Claim number 14 of Candica, LLC is denied without
     prejudice. No appearance required.

                The Proof of Claim at issue, listed as claim number 14 on the court’s
     official    claims registry, asserts $8,405.70 claim. The Debtor objects to the
     Claim on   the basis that the debt is actually owed to Juniper Card Services, not
     Candica,    LLC. Candica, LLC contends it is the assignee of the Juniper claim.
     However,    Candica LLC has not filed a copy of the assignment.

             Section 502(a) provides that a claim supported by a Proof of Claim is
     allowed unless a party in interest objects. Once an objection has been filed,
     the court may determine the amount of the claim after a noticed hearing. 11
     U.S.C. § 502(b).    It is settled law in the Ninth Circuit that the party
     objecting to a proof of claim has the burden of presenting substantial factual
     basis to overcome the prima facie validity of a proof of claim and the evidence
     must be of probative force equal to that of the creditor’s proof of claim.

                                    September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                          - Page 145 of 180 -
Wright v. Holm (In re Holm), 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); see also United
Student Funds, Inc. v. Wylie (In re Wylie), 349 B.R. 204, 210 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.
2006).

        Before the court may proceed on an objection to claim, the claimant
must be served with the objection and notice of objection. Fed. R. Bankr. P.
3007(a). While the proof of claim form states that notices are to be sent care
of the attorneys in the State of Washington, it does not state that the
attorneys are the agent for service of process.

        Though Candica, LLC is not registered with the California Secretary of
State, one search request on the internet using the Google search engine
indicated that Candica, LLC is located in Seattle, Washington.        This is
consistent with a Washington attorney being listed on the proof of claim. A
check of the Washington Secretary of State’s website reveals that Candica, LLC
is registered in the State of Washington. Its agent for service of process is
listed as Theresa A. Grosvenor, 2001 Western Ave Ste 430, Seattle, Washington
98121. This agent was not served.

        Based on Candica, LLC not having been served, the Objection to the
Proof of Claim is overruled without prejudice.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Objection to Claim of Candica LLC filed in this
        case by debtors having been presented to the court, and upon
        review of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and
        good cause appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the objection to Proof of Claim
        number 14 of Candica LLC is overruled without prejudice.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 146 of 180 -
101. 10-52482-E-13   SEAN/JENNIFER BAUERS                 OBJECTION TO CLAIM OF CAVALRY
     FEC-2           Fredrick E. Clement                  PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, CLAIM
                                                          NUMBER 15
                                                          7-27-11 [62]


     Local Rule 3007-1(c)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Not Provided.    The Proof of Service filed on July 27, 2011,
     states that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on “Cavalry
     Portfolio Services, LLC,” and not directed to the attention of a Managing Agent
     or Officer. By the court’s calculation, 55 days’ notice was provided.

     Tentative Ruling: This Objection to a Proof of Claim has been set for hearing
     on the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 3007-1(c)(1) and General Order
     05-03, Paragraph 6.

     The court’s tentative decision is to overrule the Objection to Proof of Claim
     without prejudice.   Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the
     scheduled hearing, where the parties shall address the issues identified in
     this tentative ruling and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate
     to the court’s resolution of the matter.     If the court’s tentative ruling
     becomes its final ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact
     and conclusions of law:

             The debtors failed to serve Calvary Portfolio Services, LLC in the
     manner required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004(b)(3), “Attn: Managing Agent or
     Officer.” Accordingly, the Motion is denied without prejudice.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Objection to Claim of Calvary Portfolio Services,
             LLC filed in this case by debtors having been presented to the
             court, and upon review of the pleadings, evidence, arguments
             of counsel, and good cause appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that the objection to Proof of Claim is
             overruled without prejudice.




                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 147 of 180 -
102. 10-52482-E-13   SEAN/JENNIFER BAUERS                 OBJECTION TO CLAIM OF CAVALRY
     FEC-3           Fredrick E. Clement                  PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, CLAIM
                                                          NUMBER 16
                                                          7-27-11 [69]


     Local Rule 3007-1(c)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Not Provided.    The Proof of Service filed on July 27, 2011,
     states that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on on “Cavalry
     Portfolio Services, LLC,” and not directed to the attention of a Managing Agent
     or Officer.   By the court’s calculation, 55 days’ notice was provided.

     Tentative Ruling: This Objection to a Proof of Claim has been set for hearing
     on the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 3007-1(c)(1) and General Order
     05-03, Paragraph 6.    The failure of the respondent and other parties in
     interest to file written opposition at least 14 days prior to the hearing as
     required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to
     the granting of the motion. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.
     1995).

     The court’s tentative decision is to overrule the Objection to Proof of Claim
     without prejudice.   Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the
     scheduled hearing, where the parties shall address the issues identified in
     this tentative ruling and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate
     to the court’s resolution of the matter.     If the court’s tentative ruling
     becomes its final ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact
     and conclusions of law:

             The debtors failed to serve Calvary Portfolio Services, LLC in the
     manner required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004(b)(3), “Attn: Managing Agent or
     Officer.” Accordingly, the Motion is denied without prejudice.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Objection to Calvary Portfolio Services, LLC filed
             in this case by debtors having been presented to the court,
             and upon review of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of
             counsel, and good cause appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that the objection to Proof of Claim is
             overruled without prejudice.




                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 148 of 180 -
103. 10-52482-E-13   SEAN/JENNIFER BAUERS                 OBJECTION TO CLAIM OF MIDLAND
     FEC-4           Fredrick E. Clement                  CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., CLAIM
                                                          NUMBER 10
                                                          7-27-11 [76]


     Local Rule 3007-1(c)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Not Provided.   The Proof of Service filed on July 27, 2011,
     states that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served not address to
     “Attn: Managing Agent or Officer,” and were not addressed to the agent for
     service of process as registered with the California Secretary of State. By
     the court’s calculation, 55 days’ notice was provided.

     Tentative Ruling: This Objection to a Proof of Claim has been set for hearing
     on the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 3007-1(c)(1) and General Order
     05-03, Paragraph 6.    The failure of the respondent and other parties in
     interest to file written opposition at least 14 days prior to the hearing as
     required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to
     the granting of the motion. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.
     1995).

     The court’s tentative decision is to overrule the Objection to Proof of Claim
     without prejudice.   Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the
     scheduled hearing, where the parties shall address the issues identified in
     this tentative ruling and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate
     to the court’s resolution of the matter.     If the court’s tentative ruling
     becomes its final ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact
     and conclusions of law:

             The debtors failed to serve Midland Credit Management in the manner
     required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004(b)(3), “Attn: Managing Agent or Officer.”
     Furthermore, the debtors failed to serve Midland Credit Management at the
     address provided on the California Secretary of State’s website. Accordingly,
     the Motion is denied without prejudice.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Objection to Claim of Midland Credit Management,
             Inc. filed in this case by debtors having been presented to
             the court, and upon review of the pleadings, evidence,
             arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that the objection to Proof of Claim is
             overruled without prejudice.




                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 149 of 180 -
104. 10-52482-E-13   SEAN/JENNIFER BAUERS                 OBJECTION TO CLAIM OF NATIONAL
     FEC-5           Fredrick E. Clement                  CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, CLAIM
                                                          NUMBER 9
                                                          7-27-11 [83]


     Final Ruling:   The motion having been withdrawn by the moving party, this
     matter is removed from the calendar.


105. 10-52482-E-13   SEAN/JENNIFER BAUERS                 MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
     FEC-6           Fredrick E. Clement                  8-1-11 [93]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 1, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on, Chapter 13 Trustee,
     other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
     court’s calculation, 50 days’ notice was provided.

     Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on
     the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
     Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). The court
     will address the merits of the motion.

     The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Confirm the Modified
     Plan. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing,
     where the parties shall address the issues identified in this tentative ruling
     and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s
     resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final
     ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and conclusions of
     law:

             11 U.S.C. § 1329 permits a debtor to modify a plan after confirmation.
     Here, the feasibility of the plan depends upon the success of several
     objections to claim, which were denied elsewhere on this calendar. The plan
     fails to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(6).

             Though neither the Trustee, the U.S. Trustee, nor any creditor has
     raised the issue, the court has an independent duty to make certain that the
     requirements for confirmation have been met. See United Student Aid Funds,
     Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S.   , 130 S. Ct. 1367, 1381 n.14, 176 L. Ed. 2d 158,
     173 n.14 (2010); see also Varela v. Dynamic Brokers, Inc. (In re Dynamic
     Brokers, Inc.), 293 B.R. 489, 499 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003) (citing Everett v.
     Perez (In re Perez), 30 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1994)).

             The modified Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a)
     and is not confirmed.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:


                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 150 of 180 -
             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
             Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
             the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
             appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
             and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.


106. 08-24084-E-13   MARIAROSA ALBERTIN                     MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DISCHARGE
     PGM-2           Peter G. Macaluso                      8-23-11 [55]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 23, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
     Office of the United States Trustee, and other parties of interest. By the
     court’s calculation, 28 days’ notice was provided.

     Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
     the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
     respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
     14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-
     1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion.         Cf.
     Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
     will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
     hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
     Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
     interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
     court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

     The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.                No appearance required.

             With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
     provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
     competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed
     on July 14, 2011, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R.
     Bankr. P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee
     was entered on September 3, 2011 (Dckt. 59). The entry of an order approving
     the final report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See
     In re Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

             The Debtor’s Declaration certifies that the Debtor:

             1. has completed   the plan payments,
             2. does not have   any delinquent domestic support obligations,
             3. has completed   a financial management course and filed the
             certificate with   the court,



                                   September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                         - Page 151 of 180 -
             4. has not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7, 11,
             or 12 during the four-year period prior to filing of this case
             or a discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-year
             period prior to filing of this case,
             5. is not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1),
             and
             6. is not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11
             U.S.C. § 522(q)(1).

     There being no objection, the Debtor is entitled to a discharge.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
             Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
             the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
             appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
             shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.


107. 08-26885-E-13   ERIC/JULIE KIM                       MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DISCHARGE
     SAK-3                                                8-16-11 [49]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 16, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
     Office of the United States Trustee, and other parties of interest. By the
     court’s calculation, 35 days’ notice was provided.

     Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
     the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
     respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
     14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-
     1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion.         Cf.
     Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
     will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
     hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
     Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
     interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
     court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

     The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.              No appearance required.

             With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
     provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
     competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed

                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 152 of 180 -
on July 15, 2011, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee
was entered on September 3, 2011 (Dckt. 53). The entry of an order approving
the final report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See
In re Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

        The Debtors’ Declaration certifies that the Debtors:

        1. have completed the plan payments,
        2. do not have any delinquent domestic support obligations,
        3. have completed a financial management course and filed the
        certificate with the court,
        4. have not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7,
        11, or 12 during the four-year period prior to filing of this
        case or a discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-
        year period prior to filing of this case,
        5. are not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1),
        and
        6. are not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11
        U.S.C. § 522(q)(1).

There being no objection, the Debtors are entitled to a discharge.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
        Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
        shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 153 of 180 -
108. 09-46485-E-13   EDWARD/JILL BERNI                    MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
     DEF-6           David Foyil                          8-5-11 [94]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 5, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on the Chapter 13 Trustee,
     other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
     court’s calculation, 46 days’ notice was provided.

     Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
     Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). The failure
     of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
     least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-
     1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion.         Cf.
     Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
     will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
     hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
     Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
     interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
     court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

     The Motion to Confirm the Modified Plan is granted.           No appearance required.

             11 U.S.C. § 1329 permits a debtor to modify a plan after confirmation.
     The modified Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and is confirmed.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
             Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
             the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
             appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
             Chapter 13 Plan filed on August 5, 2011 is confirmed, and
             counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
             confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
             the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
             approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
             order to the court.




                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 154 of 180 -
109. 11-36986-E-13   CHARLEEN KITTEL                      OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION OF
     NLE-1           Peter L. Cianchetta                  PLAN BY DAVID CUSICK
                                                          8-25-11 [31]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(2) Motion.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 25, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Debtor and Debtor’s
     Attorney. By the court’s calculation, 26 days’ notice was provided.

     Tentative Ruling: The Objection to the Plan was properly set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(2) and the procedure
     authorized by General Order 05-03, Paragraph 3(c). Consequently, the Debtor,
     the Trustee, the U.S. Trustee, and any other parties in interest were not
     required to file a written response or opposition to the motion. If any of
     these potential respondents appear at the hearing and offers opposition to the
     motion, the court will set a briefing schedule and a final hearing unless there
     is no need to develop the record further. If no opposition is offered at the
     hearing, the court will take up the merits of the motion. Below is the court’s
     tentative ruling, rendered on the assumption that there will be no opposition
     to the motion. Obviously, if there is opposition, the court may reconsider
     this tentative ruling.

     The court’s tentative decision is to sustain the Objection. Oral argument may
     be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing, where the parties shall
     address the issues identified in this tentative ruling and such other issues
     as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s resolution of the matter. If
     the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final ruling, the court will make the
     following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

             The Chapter 13 Trustee opposes confirmation of the Plan on the
     following bases:

             1. Debtor is above median income. According to debtor’s Form
             22, debtors’ disposable monthly income totals $4,660.52.
             Based on the applicable commitment period of sixty months,
             unsecured creditors would be entitled to receive $279,631.20.
             The plan, however, proposes to pay a 0% dividend to general
             unsecured creditors. The plan fails to comply with 11 U.S.C.
             § 1325(b).

             2.   Debtors’ amended Schedule I lists business income of
             $8,570.00 per month. The Schedule indicates that debtor is
             married. No income for debtor’s spouse is listed, though the
             spouse employer here is listed as “hospital manager, self
             employed.”   The attachment to Schedule I lists “Projected
             Income from Practice” of $13,500.00 and “Projected Income
             Outside” of $4,000.00, for a total income of $17,500.00. No
             explanation or source of the outside income is listed.
             Business expenses of $8,929.15 are also listed on this page.
             The plan fails to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b).



                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 155 of 180 -
       3. Debtors testified at the first meeting of creditors held
       on August 18, 2011 that there are three children in the
       household.   No children are listed on Schedule I, and the
       Means Test lists a household of two persons. The plan fails
       to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b).

       4. The amended Schedule J lists childcare expenses in the
       amount of $950.00, $500.00 more than the originally filed
       Schedule J, and transportation expense of $800.00, $400.00
       more than the original schedule. In addition, the Trustee
       payment of $2,153.45 is listed in error, leaving a net income
       of only fifty-five cents. The plan fails to comply with 11
       U.S.C. § 1325(b).

       5. The plan does not pay unsecured creditors what they would
       receive in the event of a Chapter 7.     Debtor’s non-exempt
       assets total $24,951.14 and debtor proposes to pay 0% to
       unsecured creditors. The debtor is married and the spouse is
       not included in the bankruptcy. The debtor has failed to file
       a spousal waiver for use of the California State Exemptions
       pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 703.140. The Trustee’s
       Objection is set for hearing on October 4, 2011. The plan
       fails to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4).

        The Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a).    The
objection is sustained and the Plan is not confirmed.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

       Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
       Civil Minutes for the hearing.

              The Objection to the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
       Trustee having been presented to the court, and upon review of
       the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
       appearing,

              IT IS ORDERED that Objection to confirmation of the
       Plan is sustained and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not
       confirmed.




                           September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                 - Page 156 of 180 -
110. 11-36986-E-13   CHARLEEN KITTEL                      MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
     PLC-2           Peter L. Cianchetta                  WELLS FARGO PRACTICE FINANCE
                                                          8-19-11 [23]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
     supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
     and Office of the United States Trustee on August 19, 2011. By the court’s
     calculation, 32 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

     Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on
     the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
     Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g).           The
     Respondent Creditor having filed an opposition, the court will address the
     merits of the motion at the hearing.       If it appears at the hearing that
     disputed material factual issues remain to be resolved, a later evidentiary
     hearing will be set. Local Bankr. R. 9014-1(g).

     The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Value Collateral
     without prejudice.   Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the
     scheduled hearing, where the parties shall address the issues identified in
     this tentative ruling and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate
     to the court’s resolution of the matter.    If the court’s tentative ruling
     becomes its final ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact
     and conclusions of law:

             The motion is accompanied by the Debtor’s declaration. The Debtor is
     the owner of “Veterinarian Equipment.” For the complete description, Debtor
     directs the court to a copy of Schedule B, which is offered as an exhibit. The
     Debtor seeks to value the property at a replacement value of $54,963.00 as of
     the petition filing date.     Creditor holds a valid security interest by a
     purchase-money loan incurred in March 1, 2010, more than one year prior to
     filing of the petition, with a balance of approximately $406,204.21.

             Wells Fargo Practice Finance objects to Debtor’s Motion to Value,
     asserting that Debtor does not qualify as a Chapter 13 debtor under the
     Bankruptcy Code. Only individuals who owe noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured
     debts of less than $360,475.00 on the petition filing day may be a debtor under
     chapter 13. 11 U.S.C. § 109(e). For the purposes of eligibility, the court
     combines the total unsecured debts across all schedules, including the
     unsecured portions of otherwise secured claims, looking only to see if the
     schedules were prepared in good faith. Scovis v. Henrichsen (In re Scovis), 249
     F.3d 975, 982-983 (9th Cir. 2001). The court may consider additional evidence
     — such as proofs of claim — if it determines that the schedules were not filed
     in good faith. 2 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 109.06[4] (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J.
     Sommer eds. 16th ed.) citing De Jounghe v. Mender (In re De Jounghe), 334 B.R.
     760, 768 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2001).

             Wells Fargo requests dismissal or conversion of the case suggesting
     that the Debtor is not eligible for Chapter 13 relief. The court refuses,
     however, to consider the requested relief outside of a properly noticed motion


                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 157 of 180 -
to dismiss. While Wells Fargo could have filed a counter-motion to dismiss the
case on this basis, for whatever reason it elected not to do so.

         Wells Fargo objects to Debtor’s motion on the basis that debtor’s
description of the asset is incomplete and incorrect.       Wells Fargo argues
debtor omitted other assets and equipment in her description and definition of
the asset, which have substantially more value and must be included as part of
Wells Fargo Practice Finances collateral. Wells Fargo offers the Declaration
of Tom Garecht who authenticates invoices for products purportedly purchased
with the loan proceeds, constitute part of its collateral, and were purportedly
not included in the Debtor’s description of the collateral.

        Wells Fargo further argues, since the description of the asset is
incomplete, the value Debtor attributes to the property is inaccurate and
wrong. Wells Fargo requests an opportunity to conduct a full inspection of the
collateral so that a complete inventory of the assets and a secured claim may
be properly valued and accounted for.

        Debtor’s description of the collateral is a nested list of assets: part
of the list is included in Schedule B and part of it is included as a list
attached to Schedule B.    The court is unsure what assets are meant to be
included in the collateral described as “Veterinarian Equipment.”       If the
Debtor cannot clearly and unambiguously list the assets to be valued in the
Motion, the court cannot clearly and unambiguously determine the amount of the
secured claim.    Because the court is unsure what assets are part of the
collateral, and the Debtor has not included a complete description of the
assets, the motion is denied without prejudice.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
        Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
        of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
        cause appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
        § 506(a) is denied without prejudice.

               IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request to dismiss the
        case is denied without prejudice.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 158 of 180 -
111. 11-36986-E-13   CHARLEEN KITTEL                      OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION OF
     PP-1            Peter L. Cianchetta                  PLAN BY WELLS FARGO PRACTICE
                                                          FINANCE
                                                          9-6-11 [42]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(2) Motion.

     Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service filed on September 6, 2011,
     states that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Debtor’s
     Attorney, Chapter 13 Trustee, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
     court’s calculation, 14 days’ notice was provided.

     Final Ruling: This objection to Plan confirmation was not properly set for
     hearing pursuant to the procedure authorized by General Order 05-03, Paragraph
     3(c). The court has determined that oral argument will not be of assistance
     in resolving this matter. No oral argument will be presented and the court
     shall issue its ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

     The court overrules the objection as untimely.            No appearance required.

              General Order 05-03, Paragraph 3(c), provides, “An objection [to a
     Plan] and a notice of hearing must be filed and served upon the debtor, the
     debtor’s attorney, and the Trustee within 7 calendar days after the first date
     set for the meeting of creditors held pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 341(a).” In this
     case the first date set for the Meeting of Creditors was August 18, 2011. The
     objection to the confirmation of the Plan was filed on September 6, 2011, more
     than 7 calendar days after the Meeting of Creditors.

             In filing the untimely objection, the creditor did not request
     authorization to file a late objection or provide any basis for the court
     extending the time for filing an objection. Because the objection is untimely,
     it is overruled on those grounds.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Objection to the Chapter 13 Plan filed by Wells
             Fargo Practice Finance having been presented to the court, and
             upon review of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel,
             and good cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Objection is overruled.




                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 159 of 180 -
112. 11-29888-E-13   DENISE MORGENROTH                    MOTION TO CONFIRM PLAN
     SAC-1           Scott A. CoBen                       8-2-11 [39]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 2, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on the Chapter 13 Trustee,
     other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
     court’s calculation, 49 days’ notice was provided.

     Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on
     the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
     Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The Trustee
     having filed an opposition, the court will address the merits of the motion.

     The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Confirm the Amended
     Plan. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing,
     where the parties shall address the issues identified in this tentative ruling
     and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s
     resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final
     ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and conclusions of
     law:

             11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
     confirmation. The Chapter 13 Trustee filed an opposition on September 6, 2011
     (Dckt. 49). Through his opposition, the Trustee alleges that the Debtor is
     delinquent to the Trustee in the amount of $91.00. On September 25, 2011, an
     additional plan payment in the amount of $777.00 will also be due. The debtor
     does not appear to be able to make the plan payments proposed as required
     pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(6).

             The Debtor filed a reply on September 12, 2011 (Dckt. 52). The debtor
     states that she will be current as of the hearing date of this Motion.
     However, the Debtor has filed no evidence to substantiate this assertion.
     Further, the mere assertion of curing a default at a future date does not
     address the admitted default being evidence that the proposed Plan is not
     feasible.

             The amended Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
     is not confirmed.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
             Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
             the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
             appearing,



                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 160 of 180 -
                    IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
             and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.


113. 08-24089-E-13   DAMIEN/TRACI LUTTRELL                MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DISCHARGE
     PGM-2           Peter G. Macaluso                    8-23-11 [52]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 23, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
     Office of the United States Trustee, and other parties of interest. By the
     court’s calculation, 28 days’ notice was provided.

     Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
     the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
     respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
     14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-
     1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion.         Cf.
     Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
     will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
     hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
     Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
     interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
     court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

     The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.              No appearance required.

             With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
     provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
     competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed
     on July 14, 2011, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R.
     Bankr. P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee
     was entered on September 3, 2011 (Dckt. 56). The entry of an order approving
     the final report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See
     In re Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

             The Debtors’ Declaration certifies that the Debtors:

             1. have completed the plan payments,
             2. do not have any delinquent domestic support obligations,
             3. have completed a financial management course and filed the
             certificate with the court,
             4. have not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7,
             11, or 12 during the four-year period prior to filing of this
             case or a discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-
             year period prior to filing of this case,
             5. are not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1),
             and
             6. are not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11
             U.S.C. § 522(q)(1).



                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 161 of 180 -
     There being no objection, the Debtors are entitled to a discharge.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
             Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
             the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
             appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
             shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.


114. 06-21490-E-13DANIEL/PHYLLIS                          DOWNUMCONTINUED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
     WW-3           Mark A. Wolff                          DISCHARGE
                                                          8-1-11 [123]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 1, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
     Office of the United States Trustee, and other parties of interest. By the
     court’s calculation, 28 days’ notice was provided.

     Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
     the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
     respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
     14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-
     1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion.         Cf.
     Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
     will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
     hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
     Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
     interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
     court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

     The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.              No appearance required.

             With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
     provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
     competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed
     on July 14, 2011, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R.
     Bankr. P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee
     was entered on September 3, 2011 (Dckt. 129). The entry of an order approving
     the final report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See
     In re Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

             The Debtors’ Declaration certifies that the Debtors:


                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 162 of 180 -
        1. have completed the plan payments,
        2. do not have any delinquent domestic support obligations,
        3. have completed a financial management course and filed the
        certificate with the court,
        4. have not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7,
        11, or 12 during the four-year period prior to filing of this
        case or a discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-
        year period prior to filing of this case,
        5. are not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1),
        and
        6. are not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11
        U.S.C. § 522(q)(1).


There being no objection, the Debtor is entitled to a discharge.

The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

        Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
        Civil Minutes for the hearing.

               The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
        Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
        the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
        appearing,

               IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
        shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.




                            September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                  - Page 163 of 180 -
115. 11-31990-E-13   JERRY/GAYLE STEIN                    MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
     CK-2            Catherine King                       CITIBANK
                                                          7-28-11 [27]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
     supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
     and Office of the United States Trustee on July 28, 2011. By the court’s
     calculation, 54 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

     Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
     respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
     14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
     9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
     nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
     because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
     party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
     Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
     defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
     review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
     matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
     from the parties’ pleadings.

     The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
     determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.

             The motion is accompanied by the Debtors’ declaration. The Debtors are
     the owners of the subject real property commonly known as 5664 Terra Linda,
     Redding, California. The Debtors seek to value the property at a fair market
     value of $166,000.00 as of the petition filing date. As the owner, the Debtor’s
     opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid. 701; see
     also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173 (9th
     Cir. 2004).

             The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
     $185,229.00. Citibank, N.A.’s second deed of trust secures a loan with a
     balance of approximately $72,998.00.     Therefore, the respondent creditor’s
     claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-collateralized.
     The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount of $0.00, and
     therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under the terms of any
     confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending Corp. (In re
     Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift (In re Lam),
     211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant to Federal
     Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.


                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 164 of 180 -
                    The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
             Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
             of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
             cause appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
             § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Citibank, N.A. secured by
             a second trust deed recorded against the real property
             commonly known as 5664 Terra Linda, Redding, California, is
             determined to have a value of $0.00, and the balance of the
             claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under the confirmed
             Chapter 13 Plan.


116. 11-37190-E-13   JOHNNY/MICHELLE ENSEY                OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION OF
     NLE-1           John Sarai                           PLAN BY DAVID CUSICK
                                                          8-25-11 [29]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 25, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Debtor and Debtor’s
     Attorney. By the court’s calculation, 26 days’ notice was provided.

     Final Ruling: The Objection to the Plan was properly set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(2) and the procedure
     authorized by General Order 05-03, Paragraph 3(c). Consequently, the Debtor,
     the Trustee, the U.S. Trustee, and any other parties in interest were not
     required to file a written response or opposition to the motion. The court has
     determined that oral argument will be not be of assistance in resolving this
     matter.   No oral argument will be presented and the court shall issue its
     ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

     The Objection is overruled as moot.      No appearance required.

             Subsequent to the filing of this Objection, the Debtor filed a first
     amended Plan on August 25, 2011.    The filing of a new plan is a de facto
     withdrawal of the pending Plan. The objection is overruled.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Objection to Confirmation of the Chapter 13 Plan
             filed by the Trustee having been presented to the court, and
             upon review of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel,
             and good cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that Objection is overruled as moot.



                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 165 of 180 -
117. 11-37190-E-13   JOHNNY/MICHELLE ENSEY                MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
     PLG-1           John Sarai                           FIRST HORIZON HOME LOAN
                                                          CORPORATION
                                                          8-11-11 [17]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
     supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
     and Office of the United States Trustee on August , 2011. By the court’s
     calculation, 40 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

     Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
     respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
     14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
     9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
     nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The
     court has determined that oral argument will not be of assistance in resolving
     this matter. No oral argument will be presented and the court shall issue its
     ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

     The Motion to Value Collateral is denied without prejudice.            No appearance
     required.

             The present motion seeks to have the court value the secured claim of
     an entity identified as First Horizon Home Loan Corporation, pursuant to 11
     U.S.C. § 506(a). However, service of process was not made to First Horizon
     Home Loan Corporation, to an address on file with the California Secretary of
     State. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004(b)(3).

             Movant served First Horizon National Corporation and First Tennessee
     Bank, N.A., neither of which match the company on the motion. No proof of
     claim has been filed by any of the above creditors. According to the records
     of the California Secretary of State, the address listed for the named entity
     “First Horizon Loans Corporation” is 4000 Horizon Way MC 1123, Irving, Texas
     75063, with the registered agent as CT Corporation Systems, located at 818 W
     Seventh Street, Los Angeles, California. Service of process was not sufficient
     and the Motion is denied without prejudice.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
             Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
             of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
             cause appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
             § 506(a) is denied without prejudice.

                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 166 of 180 -
118. 10-51891-E-13   MICHELLE DEWAR                       MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
     JT-6            John A. Tosney                       8-12-11 [73]



     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 12, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on the Chapter 13 Trustee,
     other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
     court’s calculation, 39 days’ notice was provided.

     Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on
     the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
     Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). The Trustee
     having filed an opposition, the court will address the merits of the motion.

     The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Confirm the Modified
     Plan. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing,
     where the parties shall address the issues identified in this tentative ruling
     and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s
     resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final
     ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and conclusions of
     law:

             11 U.S.C. § 1329 permits a debtor to modify a plan after confirmation.
     The Trustee filed an opposition on September 6, 2011 (Dckt. 79). Through his
     opposition, the Trustee states that debtors’ modified plan proposes to pay
     $15.00 per month to Chase for post-petition arrears in months thirteen through
     sixty. The Trustee provides that he is uncertain of the treatment of this
     creditor as debtor has not included post-petition arrears within Class 1 long-
     term secured claims, and the additional provisions do not provide this
     information or any other specifics, such as the total amount owed for post
     petition arrears or an interest rate, if any. The objection is sustained,
     because more information is necessary for the Trustee to assess the feasibility
     of the plan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(6).

             The court notes that post-petition defaults may be cured through the
     plan.   Such a cure is permitted by 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5) incorporated by 11
     U.S.C. § 1329(b)(1). Section 1322(b)(5) does not differentiate between pre-
     and post-petition defaults.

     The modified Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and is not
     confirmed.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.



                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 167 of 180 -
                    The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
             Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
             the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
             appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
             and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.


119. 11-37391-E-13   DOROTHY RADFORD                      MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
     RAC-1           Richard A. Chan                      WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
                                                          8-19-11 [14]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
     supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent
     creditor, and Office of the United States Trustee on August 19, 2011. By the
     court’s calculation, 32 days’ notice was provided.       28 days’ notice is
     required.

     Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
     respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
     14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
     9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
     nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
     because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
     party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
     Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
     defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
     review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
     matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
     from the parties’ pleadings.

     The Motion to Value Collateral is granted and creditor’s secured claim is
     determined to be $0.00. No appearance required.

             The motion is accompanied by the Debtor’s declaration. The Debtor is
     the owner of the subject real property commonly known as 8570 Aspen Brook Way,
     Elk Grove, California. The Debtor seeks to value the property at a fair market
     value of $185,000.00 as of the petition filing date. As the owner, the Debtor’s
     opinion of value is evidence of the asset’s value. See Fed. R. Evid. 701; see
     also Enewally v. Wash. Mut. Bank (In re Enewally), 368 F.3d 1165, 1173 (9th
     Cir. 2004).

             The first deed of trust secures a loan with a balance of approximately
     $285,888.00. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s second deed of trust secures a loan with
     a balance of approximately $63,260.00. Therefore, the respondent creditor’s
     claim secured by a junior deed of trust is completely under-collateralized.
     The creditor’s secured claim is determined to be in the amount of $0.00, and
     therefore no payments shall be made on the secured claim under the terms of any


                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 168 of 180 -
     confirmed Plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(a); Zimmer v. PSB Lending Corp. (In re
     Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002); Lam v. Investors Thrift (In re Lam),
     211 B.R. 36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997). The valuation motion pursuant to Federal
     Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) is granted.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
             Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
             of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
             cause appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
             § 506(a) is granted and the claim of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
             secured by a second trust deed recorded against the real
             property commonly known as 8570 Aspen Brook Way, Elk Grove,
             California, is determined to have a value of $0.00, and the
             balance of the claim is to be paid as an unsecured claim under
             the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.


120. 11-28392-E-13   DARREN CANADY                        MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY
     MMN-5           Michael M. Noble                     8-24-11 [67]


     Final Ruling: The motion is continued to the court’s Law and Motion Calendar,
     on October 6, 2011 at 10:30 a.m., because this case was converted to one under
     Chapter 7.


121. 11-36992-E-13   DANNIE/JARIS BLANTON                 OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION OF
     NLE-1           C. Anthony Hughes                    PLAN BY DAVID CUSICK
                                                          8-25-11 [27]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(2) Motion.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 25, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Debtor and Debtor’s
     Attorney. By the court’s calculation, 26 days’ notice was provided.

     Final Ruling: The Objection to the Plan was properly set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(2) and the procedure
     authorized by General Order 05-03, Paragraph 3(c). Consequently, the Debtor,
     the Trustee, the U.S. Trustee, and any other parties in interest were not
     required to file a written response or opposition to the motion.

     The hearing on the Objection is continued to 2:00 p.m. on October 4, 2011.           No
     appearance required.

                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 169 of 180 -
              The Chapter 13 Trustee opposes confirmation of the Plan on the basis
     that the feasibility of the debtors’ plan depends, in part, on Motions to Value
     Bank of America’s and Wells Fargo Financial’s collateral, both of which are set
     for hearing on October 4, 2011. Additionally the debtors have requested that
     this objection be continued to that date.

             Accordingly, the Objection to Confirmation will be continued to October
     4, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. to be heard with the Motions to Value Collateral.


122. 09-44696-E-13   DAVID/TRACY AYERS                    MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
     WW-2            Mark A. Wolff                        8-8-11 [27]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 8, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on the 13 Trustee, other
     parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the court’s
     calculation, 43 days’ notice was provided.

     Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on
     the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
     Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). The Trustee
     having filed an opposition, the court will address the merits of the motion.

     The court’s tentative decision is to deny the Motion to Confirm the Modified
     Plan. Oral argument may be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing,
     where the parties shall address the issues identified in this tentative ruling
     and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s
     resolution of the matter. If the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final
     ruling, the court will make the following findings of fact and conclusions of
     law:

             11 U.S.C. § 1329 permits a debtor to modify a plan after confirmation.
      The Chapter 13 Trustee filed his opposition on September 6, 2011 (Dckt. 34).
     Through his opposition, the Trustee alleges:

             1. Debtors’ modified plan, filed on August 8, 2011, proposes
             plan payments of $275.00 for twenty-one months, then a lump
             sum payment of $10,450.00 in month 22, with no less than 0% to
             general unsecured creditors, for total payments of $16,225.00.
             Debtors’ declaration states that they are modifying their plan
             for the purpose of completing their plan early with a lump sum
             payment, which they intend to borrow from David Ayer’s 401k
             account.

             Under the confirmed plan, which was filed on November 11,
             2009, debtors were to pay $275.00 per month for sixty months
             with 0% to general unsecured creditors, for a total of
             $16,500.00. Under the proposed modification, debtors will be
             submitting $275.00 less than if they would have completed
             their original plan.


                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 170 of 180 -
             The debtors may not be able to make the payments called for
             under the plan, because the debtor indicated that his 401K
             account had insufficient funds to make the lump sum payment.

     Debtors filed a reply on September 13, 2011 (Dckt. 37). Through their reply,
     debtors state (1) that they will increase the lump sum payment to provide for
     the $275.00; and (2) that their 401K account has a balance of $60,000.00.
     However, the debtors have failed to file evidence to support the second
     assertion.

             The modified Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a)
     and is not confirmed.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
             Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
             the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
             appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Confirm the Plan is denied
             and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not confirmed.


123. 11-36996-E-13   NATALIE FAMINI                       OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION OF
     NLE-1           C. Anthony Hughes                    PLAN BY DAVID P. CUSICK
                                                          8-25-11 [17]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(2) Motion.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 25, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Debtor and Debtor’s
     Attorney. By the court’s calculation, 26 days’ notice was provided.

     Final Ruling: The Objection to the Plan was properly set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(2) and the procedure
     authorized by General Order 05-03, Paragraph 3(c). Consequently, the Debtor,
     the Trustee, the U.S. Trustee, and any other parties in interest were not
     required to file a written response or opposition to the motion.

     The hearing on the Objection is continued to 2:00 p.m. on October 11, 2011.
     No appearance required.

             The Chapter 13 Trustee opposes confirmation of the Plan on the basis
     that the feasibility of the plan depends, in part, on a Motion to Value
     Collateral which is set for hearing on October 11, 2011, at 2:00 p.m.

             Accordingly, this matter is continued to October 11, 2011, at 2:00 p.m.
     to be heard with that Motion.

                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 171 of 180 -
124. 11-26797-E-13   RUDOLPH/MARY TAMAYO                  MOTION TO CONFIRM PLAN
     RIN-3           Michael Rinne                        8-5-11 [47]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 5, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on the Chapter 13 Trustee,
     other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
     court’s calculation, 46 days’ notice was provided.

     Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
     Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The failure
     of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
     least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-
     1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion.         Cf.
     Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
     will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
     hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
     Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
     interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
     court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

     The Motion to Confirm the Amended Plan is granted.            No appearance required.

             11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
     confirmation. The amended Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
     is confirmed.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
             Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
             the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
             appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
             Chapter 13 Plan filed on August 4, 2011 is confirmed, and
             counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
             confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
             the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
             approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
             order to the court.




                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 172 of 180 -
125. 07-25398-E-13   DONNA LOGALBO                        MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DISCHARGE
     EJS-5           Eric John Schwab                     8-23-11 [93]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 23, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee,
     Office of the United States Trustee, and other parties of interest. By the
     court’s calculation, 28 days’ notice was provided.

     Final Ruling: The Motion for an Entry of Discharge has been set for hearing on
     the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
     respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
     14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-
     1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion.         Cf.
     Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
     will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
     hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
     Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
     interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
     court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

     The Motion for an Entry of Discharge is granted.              No appearance required.

             With some exceptions, 11 U.S.C. § 1328 permits the discharge of debts
     provided for in the Plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502 after the
     competition of plan payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee’s final report was filed
     on September 14, 2010, and no objection was filed within 30 days. See Fed. R.
     Bankr. P. 5009. The order approving final report and discharging the trustee
     was entered on October 18, 2010 (Dckt. 91). The entry of an order approving
     the final report is evidence that the estate has been fully administered. See
     In re Avery, 272 B.R. 718, 729 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2002).

             The Debtor’s Declaration certifies that the Debtor:

             1. has completed the plan payments,
             2. does not have any delinquent domestic support obligations,
             3. has completed a financial management course and filed the
             certificate with the court,
             4. has not received a discharge in a case under Chapter 7, 11,
             or 12 during the four-year period prior to filing of this case
             or a discharge under a Chapter 13 case during the two-year
             period prior to filing of this case,
             5. is not subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 522(q)(1),
             and
             6. is not a party to a pending proceeding which implicates 11
             U.S.C. § 522(q)(1).

     There being no objection, the Debtor is entitled to a discharge.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:


                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 173 of 180 -
             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion for Entry of Discharge Plan filed by the
             Debtors having been presented to the court, and upon review of
             the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
             appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the court
             shall enter the discharge for the debtor in this case.


126. 11-38898-E-13   KENNETH MCCRAY AND                   MOTION TO VALUE COLLATERAL OF
     CYB-1           JENNIFER BOATMAN-MCCRAY              HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.
                     Candace Y. Brooks                    8-16-11 [14]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided.   The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
     supporting pleadings were served on Chapter 13 Trustee, respondent creditor,
     and Office of the United States Trustee on August 16, 2011. By the court’s
     calculation, 35 days’ notice was provided. 28 days’ notice is required.

     Final Ruling: The Motion to Value Collateral has been set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1). The failure of the
     respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least
     14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
     9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
     nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The
     court has determined that oral argument will not be of assistance in resolving
     this matter. No oral argument will be presented and the court shall issue its
     ruling from the pleadings filed by the parties.

     The Motion to Value Collateral is denied without prejudice. No appearance
     required.

             The motion is accompanied by Debtor’s declaration. Debtor does not
     provide the requisite evidence of knowledge of the property in the declaration.
     Debtor does not name the property nor do they seek to value the property at a
     fair market value in the Declaration. The declaration seems to be regarding
     a plan confirmation or evidence fo a entry of discharge, not a Declaration
     stating their knowledge of the value of the property. Since the motion is not
     supported by proper evidence, the motion is denied without prejudice.

             While the owner of the property may testify as to its value, such
     evidence is not binding on the court. Here the sole testimony concerning the
     property and value is “We believe that the fair market value of our property
     [which is not defined] is $175,000.00.”     The court cannot find that this
     statement is sufficient, credible evidence of the value of some piece of
     unidentified real property.




                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 174 of 180 -
     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion for Valuation of Collateral filed by
             Debtor(s) having been presented to the court, and upon review
             of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good
             cause appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that the Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
             § 506(a) is denied without prejudice.


127. 09-24599-E-13   PAUL/LORI ANDERSON                   MOTION TO MODIFY PLAN
     PGM-6           Peter G. Macaluso                    8-15-11 [131]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 15, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on the, Chapter 13
     Trustee, other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee.
     By the court’s calculation, 36 days’ notice was provided.

     Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
     Paragraph 8(b), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). The failure
     of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
     least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-
     1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion.         Cf.
     Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
     will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
     hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
     Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
     interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
     court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

     The Motion to Confirm the Modified Plan is granted.           No appearance required.

             11 U.S.C. § 1329 permits a debtor to modify a plan after confirmation.
     The modified Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and is confirmed.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
             Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
             the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
             appearing,

                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 175 of 180 -
                    IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
             Chapter 13 Plan filed on August 15, 2011 is confirmed, and
             counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
             confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
             the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
             approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
             order to the court.


128. 11-35299-E-13   ROBERT BLACKBURN                     MOTION TO CONFIRM PLAN
     RAC-2           Richard A. Chan                      8-2-11 [28]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 2, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on the Chapter 13 Trustee,
     other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee. By the
     court’s calculation, 49 days’ notice was provided.

     Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
     Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The failure
     of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
     least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-
     1(f)(1)(ii) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion.         Cf.
     Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court
     will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual
     hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th
     Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the respondent and other parties in
     interest are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the
     court will issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

     The Motion to Confirm the Amended Plan is granted.            No appearance required.

             11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
     confirmation. The amended Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
     is confirmed.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
             Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
             the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
             appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
             Chapter 13 Plan filed on August 2, 2011 is confirmed, and
             counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order


                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 176 of 180 -
             confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
             the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
             approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
             order to the court.


129. 11-35899-E-13   ARACELI MARTIN                       OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION OF
     NLE-1           Steele Lanphier                      PLAN BY DAVID CUSICK
                                                          8-18-11 [16]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(2) Motion.

     Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on August 18, 2011, states
     that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on the Debtor and Debtor’s
     Attorney. By the court’s calculation, 33 days’ notice was provided.

     Tentative Ruling: The Objection to the Plan was properly set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(2) and the procedure
     authorized by General Order 05-03, Paragraph 3(c). Consequently, the Debtor,
     the Trustee, the U.S. Trustee, and any other parties in interest were not
     required to file a written response or opposition to the motion. If any of
     these potential respondents appear at the hearing and offers opposition to the
     motion, the court will set a briefing schedule and a final hearing unless there
     is no need to develop the record further. If no opposition is offered at the
     hearing, the court will take up the merits of the motion. Below is the court’s
     tentative ruling, rendered on the assumption that there will be no opposition
     to the motion. Obviously, if there is opposition, the court may reconsider
     this tentative ruling.

     The court’s tentative decision is to sustain the Objection. Oral argument may
     be presented by the parties at the scheduled hearing, where the parties shall
     address the issues identified in this tentative ruling and such other issues
     as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s resolution of the matter. If
     the court’s tentative ruling becomes its final ruling, the court will make the
     following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

             The Chapter 13 Trustee opposes confirmation of the Plan on the basis
     that the debtor’s plan is not the debtor’s best effort pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
     § 1325(b). Debtor is below median income and proposes a thirty-six (36) month
     plan. On Schedule I, debtor lists gross income of $2,236.00 per month, and
     deducts standard deductions for taxes and medical, dental and vision, which
     debtor indicates are deducted from her payroll.

             However, upon review of the debtor’s paystubs, it appears the employer
     pays all medical insurance, including dental and vision. The Trustee further
     asserts that he is unable to determine whether the debtor can make the payments
     under the plan, because debtor’s Schedule I shows that a portion of the
     debtor’s income is from a boyfriend’s contribution. However, debtor has failed
     to provide evidence to support this claim. The plan fails to comply with 11
     U.S.C. § 1325(a)(6).

             The Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a).                The
     objection is sustained and the Plan is not confirmed.

                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 177 of 180 -
The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
holding that:

       Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
       Civil Minutes for the hearing.

              The Objection to the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
       Trustee having been presented to the court, and upon review of
       the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
       appearing,

              IT IS ORDERED that Objection to confirmation of the
       Plan is sustained and the proposed Chapter 13 Plan is not
       confirmed.




                           September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                 - Page 178 of 180 -
130. 11-29544-E-13   ANDREW RATHBONE                      MOTION TO STRIKE
     LAZ-1                                                9-7-11 [74]

            CASE DISMISSED 9-7-11


     Final Ruling: The case having previously been dismissed, the Motion is denied
     as moot.

             Andrew Rathbone, appearing as a self represented litigant, has filed
     a Motion to Strike Motion for Relief From the Automatic Stay.       The Motion
     asserts that the grounds for striking the motion for relief are “a corporate
     fiction for a lack of standing and creditor status.” The pleading is actually
     a series of personal, professional, and substantive attacks on the allegations
     in the motion for relief and supporting pleadings. Opposition to a motion is
     not a basis for “striking” a pleading.

             Second, the court has already dismissed the Debtor’s bankruptcy case,
     rendering the pending motion for relief moot and the present motion to strike
     (whatever legal relief is actually sought under this motion) moot.

             Even if the motion was not moot, the court would be forced to deny it.
     Debtor seeks to strike the motion for relief. Such relief is not available in
     a contested matter. The motion to strike is created by Federal Rule of Civil
     Procedure 12(f), which is applicable to adversary proceedings pursuant to
     Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7012.        However, Rule 7012 is not
     applicable to contested matters in bankruptcy cases. See Fed. R. Bankr. P.
     9014(c). The requested remedy is not available to the Debtor.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion to Strike having been presented to the
             court, the case having been previously dismissed, and upon
             review of the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and
             good cause appearing,

                     IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is denied as moot.




                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 179 of 180 -
131. 11-35144-E-13   ARTURO/CRISTINA PRADO                CONTINUED MOTION TO CONFIRM
     TOG-2           Thomas O. Gillis                     PLAN
                                                          7-1-11 [16]


     Local Rule 9014-1(f)(1) Motion - No Opposition Filed.

     Proper Notice Provided.    The Proof of Service states that the Motion and
     supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Chapter 13 Trustee, all creditors,
     parties requesting special notice, and Office of the United States Trustee on
     July 1, 2011. By the court’s calculation, 53 days’ notice was provided. 42
     days’ notice is required.

     Final Ruling: The Motion to Confirm the Plan has been set for hearing on the
     notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1), General Order 05-03,
     Paragraph 8(a), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(b). The failure
     of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at
     least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule
     9014-1(f)(1)(ii) is considered to be the equivalent of a statement of
     nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
     because the court will not materially alter the relief requested by the moving
     party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Law Offices of David A. Boone v.
     Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the
     defaults of the respondent and other parties in interest are entered. Upon
     review of the record there are no disputed material factual issues and the
     matter will be resolved without oral argument. The court will issue its ruling
     from the parties’ pleadings.

     The Motion to Confirm the Amended Plan is granted.            No appearance required.

             11 U.S.C. § 1323 permits a debtor to amend a plan any time before
     confirmation. The amended Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322 and 1325(a) and
     is confirmed.

     The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form
     holding that:

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
             Civil Minutes for the hearing.

                    The Motion to Confirm the Chapter 13 Plan filed by the
             Debtor having been presented to the court, and upon review of
             the pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause
             appearing,

                    IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted, Debtor’s
             Chapter 13 Plan filed on July 1, 2011, is confirmed, and
             counsel for the Debtor shall prepare an appropriate order
             confirming the Chapter 13 Plan, transmit the proposed order to
             the Chapter 13 Trustee for approval as to form, and if so
             approved, the Chapter 13 Trustee will submit the proposed
             order to the court.



                                 September 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
                                       - Page 180 of 180 -

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:259
posted:10/4/2011
language:English
pages:180