Dimitri v. Semmes, et al

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 1, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-30145
In The Matter of: JOSEPHINE D. DIMITRI
Debtor.
-------------------------
JOSEPHINE D. DIMITRI,
Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM C. GARRETT, Succession of; GRANVILLE SEMMES,
Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C.
Garrett; DEBE GARRETT LEVIS, Individually and as executrix
of the Succession of William C. Garrett; BILLIE GARRETT
SEMMES, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of
William C. Garrett,
Appellees.
______________________
In The Matter of: JOSEPHINE D. DIMITRI
Debtor.
-------------------------
JOSEPHINE D. DIMITRI,
Appellant,

-- 1 of 3 --

2
versus
GRANVILLE SEMMES, Individually and as executrix of the
Succession of William C. Garrett; DEBE GARRETT LEVIS,
Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C.
Garrett; BILLIE GARRETT SEMMES, Individually and as
executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; WILLIAM
C. GARRETT, Succession of,
Appellees.
____________________
In The Matter of: JOSEPHINE D. DIMITRI
Debtor.
-------------------------
JOSEPHINE D. DIMITRI,
Appellant,
versus
GRANVILLE SEMMES, Individually and as executrix of the
Succession of William C. Garrett; DEBE GARRETT LEVIS,
Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C.
Garrett; BILLIE GARRETT SEMMES, Individually and as
executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; WILLIAM
C. GARRETT, Succession of,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana
(USDC No. 03-CV-3241)
_______________________________________________________

-- 2 of 3 --

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
3
Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The bankruptcy court properly exercised its powers in lifting the automatic stay
arising from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition filed in bad faith. 11 U.S.C.A. § 105(a);
see In re Little Creek Development Co., 779 F.2d 1068, 1071 (5th Cir. 1986). Further,
the court granted the motion to dismiss, based on bad faith of the filing, as demonstrated
by the record. See 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b); see In re Little Creek, 779 F.2d at 1072. The
district court was also correct in denying the motions for reconsideration and a new trial.
See Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir. 1978); see also Johnston v. Lucas, 786
F.2d 1254, 1257 (5th Cir. 1986). Finally, the “NASCO” motion was properly denied as it
was without merit. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 115 L.Ed.2d 27, 111 S.Ct
2123, 2132 (1991).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --