- 4 -
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Pacific's
debt be determined non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. �523 of
the Bankruptcy Code and such Judgment shall be res judicata on any
further proceedings before this Court or any other.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Judgment
be, and it is hereby, entered * * * that all debts pursuant to 11
U.S.C. �727 are determined non-dischargeable in this case and any
other proceeding currently pending or to be filed by the Debtors.
This Judgment should be considered res judicata to any future
filing by either Chan Quang Kieu or Quynh Kieu, the Debtors
herein. [Emphasis added.]
There was no stay, and the order contains no mention of the status of the
automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. section 362(a) (1988).
On December 12, 1994, petitioners filed a petition with this Court
seeking a redetermination of their tax liability for the taxable year 1989.
At the time the petition was filed, petitioners resided at Irvine, California.
On December 19, 1994, petitioners made a motion for relief in respect of
the bankruptcy court's order entered November 1, 1994. On January 23, 1995,
the bankruptcy court entered an order granting petitioners' motion for relief
and vacating its prior order entered November 1, 1994. The bankruptcy court's
order entered January 23, 1995, contains no mention of the automatic stay
imposed under 11 U.S.C. section 362(a) (1988), and does not impose any stay of
proceedings.
On July 21, 1995, this Court issued an order directing the parties to
show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on
the ground that the petition was filed in violation of the automatic stay
imposed under 11 U.S.C. section 362(a)(8) (1988). Both parties filed
responses to the Court's order. A hearing was conducted in this case in
Washington, D.C., on September 20, 1995. Counsel for respondent appeared at
the hearing and presented oral argument. Although petitioners were not
represented at the hearing, they did file a written statement with the Court
pursuant to Rule 50(c).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011