Gonzales v. Potter

1The Motion contained two separate requests for relief: 1) a request to strike certain
papers filed by Martin Friedlander; and 1) a request for an order to show cause why Martin
Friedlander should not be held in contempt for violating an order of the Court entered in this
Adversary Proceeding. 	The Court entered orders denying the motions (Docket Nos. 15, 18, and
19) Plaintiff sought to strike. See Docket Nos. 26, 27, and 28. 	Consequently, that portion of the
Motion that sought to strike Docket Nos. 15, 18, and 19 was denied as moot. See Docket No. 30.
1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
In re: 	JEFFERY W. POTTER, 	No. 7-05-14071 MS
Debtor.
_____________________________________________________________________________
YVETTE J. GONZALES,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Adversary No. 07-1084 M
JEFFERY W. POTTER,
Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATING
AN ORDER OF THE COURT
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Papers Filed by
Martin Friedlander (Docket Nos. 15, 18 and 19) and for an Order to Show Cause Why Martin
Friedlander Should Not be Held in Contempt and be Sanctioned for Violating an Order of this
Court (“Motion”).1 The Motion asserts that by filing Docket Nos. 15, 18, and 19, Mr.
Friedlander violated this Court’s order which denied Mr. Friedlander’s motion to appear pro hac
vice in this adversary proceeding on behalf of Defendant Jeffery Potter. See Docket No. 11. 	At
a preliminary hearing on the Motion, held December 18, 2007, the parties agreed that the Court
could determine the Motion without a final hearing, and the Court set a briefing schedule for the
Case 07-01084-m Doc 44 Filed 04/16/08 Entered 04/16/08 09:53:49 Page 1 of 6

2See Plaintiff’s Reply to Martin Friedlander’s Opposition to Trustee’s Motion for an
Order to Show Cause Why Martin Friedlander Should Not be Held in Contempt and be
Sanctioned for Violating an Order of this Court (“Reply” - Docket No. 39); and Amended
Plaintiff’s Reply to Martin Friedlander’s Opposition to Trustee’s Motion for an Order to Show
Cause why Martin Friedlander Should not be Held in Contempt and be Sanctioned for Violating
an Order of this Court (“Amended Reply” - Docket No. 40); and Martin S. Friedlander’s
Opposition to Trustee’s Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Martin S. Friedlander Should not
be Held in Contempt of Court (“Opposition” - Docket No. 41). The Opposition includes
allegations regarding the Chapter 7 Trustee’s actions in the bankruptcy proceeding which are not
properly raised in response to the Motion. The Court will not consider those arguments in
determining the Motion. Mr. Friedlander also filed an opposing brief in the Debtor’s bankruptcy
proceeding that addressed a separate motion for contempt, mistakenly believing that the brief he
filed in the bankruptcy proceeding was the brief requested by the Court at the preliminary
hearing on the Motion.
2
parties. See Docket No. 38.
Upon review of the Motion and the briefs in support and in opposition thereto 2
, the Court
finds that the documents filed by Mr. Friedlander that Plaintiff asserts entitles her to an award of
sanctions for civil contempt do not technically violate the Court’s prior order denying Mr.
Friedlander’s request to appear pro hac vice on behalf of the Defendant. 	Consequently, the
Motion will be denied.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends that the papers filed by Mr. Friedlander at Docket No. 15, 18, and 19
constitute continued, improper, attempts by Mr. Friedlander to represent Defendant Jeffery
Potter in violation of the Court’s Order Denying Martin S. Friedlander’s Motion to be Admitted
Pro Hac Vice in this Chapter 7 Proceeding and All Adversary Proceedings Now Pending in this
Court Appended to this Chapter 7 for the Purpose of Representing Jeffery W. Potter, Debtor,
Summit Investment Co., LLC, Mariana Danilovic, former Trustee of the California Trust, Martin
S. Friedlander as Successor Trustee of the California Trust and All Defendants and Plaintiffs
Case 07-01084-m Doc 44 Filed 04/16/08 Entered 04/16/08 09:53:49 Page 2 of 6

3
Who Seek My Representation in this Entire Bankruptcy Proceeding (“Order Denying Pro Hac
Vice Appearance”). See Docket # 11. 	The Order Denying Pro Hac Vice Appearance
specifically prohibits Mr. Friedlander from entering his appearance in pro hac vice in this
adversary proceeding on behalf of the Debtor-Defendant, Jeffery Potter. 	Id.
Plaintiff requests the Court to sanction Mr. Friedlander for violating the Order Denying
Pro Hac Vice Appearance, and requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $742.50, representing
3.3 hours of work in preparing the Mot ion and appearing at the preliminary hearing on the
Motion, plus applicable gross receipts taxes. 	Plaintiff further requests the Court to fine Mr.
Friedlander an additional $742.50 to deter future violations of this Court’s orders. 	Mr.
Friedlander contends that motions he filed were filed pro se, on behalf of himself as a named
defendant in the fraudulent conveyance case, and as a secured creditor in the Debtor’s
bankruptcy proceeding. 	He further asserts that the motions were not willfully filed in violation
of the Court’s Order Denying Pro Hac Vice Appearance, and complains that Plaintiff has not put
him on sufficient notice of whether she seeks civil or criminal contempt.
Plaintiff’s Motion is aimed at the following three motions filed by Mr. Friedlander after
the date of the entry of the Order Denying Pro Hac Vice Appearance: 	1) Martin S.
Friedlander’s Motion to Consolidate Various Pending Motions and to Set A Final Hearing on All
of These Motions in Mid October Where the Court Can Block Off Sufficient Time to Hear These
Motions So That I may Put On My Evidence to Shorten this Procedural Nightmare for Court and
Counsel and All Parties Especially the Debtor Who Was Mispresented [sic.] by All Attorneys
Except Baker and Friedlander (“Consolidation Motion”); 2) Friedlander’s Request for Notice of
All Pleadings and Hearings and to be Present by Telephone to Listen to All Telephonic Hearings
Case 07-01084-m Doc 44 Filed 04/16/08 Entered 04/16/08 09:53:49 Page 3 of 6

4
in Adversaries in which I am Neither a Party or Attorney for a Party (“Request for Notice”); and
3) Friedlander’s Motion for Consolidation and Stay Complaints Objecting to Discharge Until
Fraudulent Conveyance Action Filed by Bankruptcy Trustee is Finally Determined (Final
Judgment after All Appeal Time has Run and the Final Remittitur has Come Down from the
Highest Appellate Court (“Motion for Consolidation and Stay”). 	The Consolidation Motion
recites that Martin S. Friedlander, Esq. in his personal capacity as Defendant in the Fraudulent
Conveyance Action, as a Secured Creditor, and as a Third Party Creditor Beneficiary of the
California Trust, has standing pro se[.]” 	The Request for Notice similarly recites that “Martin
S. Friedlander, Creditor, defendant and member of the public” is bringing the motion. 	Finally,
the Motion for Consolidation and Stay recites that “Martin S. Friedlander, an individual
defendant in the Case Trustee’s fraudulent conveyance action, and a secured creditor herein” is
the party bringing the motion.
This Court has the power to enter sanctions for civil contempt based on an attorney or
party’s violation of a prior court order. See 11 U.S.C. § 105 (“The court may issue any order,
process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.”);
Mountain America Credit Union v. Skinner, (In re Skinner), 917 F.2d 444, 447 (10 th Cir. 1990)
(concluding that bankruptcy courts have statutory authority to issue orders for civil contempt
based on 11 U.S.C. § 105). Civil contempt sanctions may be either coercive or remedial. In re
Shafer, 63 B.R. 194, 198 (Bankr.D.Kan. 1986). Coercive civil contempt sanctions serve to
enforce future compliance with court orders. Id. 	Remedial civil contempt sanctions compensate
the injured party for the losses sustained by the offending party’s non-compliance with court
orders. Id. See also, Utah State Credit Union v. Skinner (In re Skinner), 90 B.R. 470, 478
Case 07-01084-m Doc 44 Filed 04/16/08 Entered 04/16/08 09:53:49 Page 4 of 6

5
(D.Utah 1988)(stating that “[t]he primary purpose of a civil contempt sanction is to compensate
losses sustained by another’s disobedience to a court order and to compel future compliance with
court orders.”). 	Whether to impose civil contempt sanctions falls within the Court’s discretion.
See In re Armstrong, 304 B.R. 432, 435 (10th Cir. BAP 2004)(“Whether a bankruptcy court
properly imposed civil contempt sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”)(citation
omitted).
In the actions Plaintiff complains of here, Mr. Friedlander took special care to recite that
he was not appearing on behalf of Defendant Jeffery Potter, but on behalf of himself, as
Defendant in a pending fraudulent conveyance action and as a creditor in the Debtor’s
bankruptcy proceeding. But given that Mr. Friedlander is not a party to this adversary
proceeding, it is difficult to accept Mr. Friedlander’s representations of standing as stated in the
motions when it is apparent that the motions attempt to circumvent the spirit of the Order
Denying Pro Hac Vice Appearance. 	Nevertheless, the Court will not impose sanctions against
Mr. Friedlander based on his filing of the Consolidation Motion, the Request for Notice and the
Motion for Consolidation and Stay. All three motions have been denied, rendering moot
Plaintiff’s request to strike the motions. And the Request for Notice simply requested that Mr.
Friedlander be allowed to attend, but not participate in, any scheduled hearing. For these
reasons, sanctions are not warranted at this time. The Court cautions, however, that any further
action taken by any party in violation of this Court’s orders will result in sanctions for civil
contempt against the offending party.
Case 07-01084-m Doc 44 Filed 04/16/08 Entered 04/16/08 09:53:49 Page 5 of 6

6
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
________________________________________
MARK B. McFEELEY
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Date entered on docket: April 16, 2008
COPY TO:
George Dave Giddens
Attorney for Plaintiff
10400 Academy NE, Suite 350
Albuquerque, NM 87111
Martin Friedlander
10350 Wilshire Blvd., #603
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Jeffery W. Potter
PO Box 8280
Santa Fe, NM 87504
Case 07-01084-m Doc 44 Filed 04/16/08 Entered 04/16/08 09:53:49 Page 6 of 6