You are here

Organic Family, LLC, Rolf Klefstad, Roger Klefstad, Gregory Hetrick, Samuel Danzinger, and Steven Pechacek v. Chad L. Pawlak and Jo Ann Pawlak (In re Pawlak), Adv. No. 10-0148, Case No. 10-11787-7 (06/03/2011) – Judge Thomas S. Utschig

Case Summary:
Debtors moved to dismiss a portion of the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. While the federal rules require only a “short and plain statement” of the plaintiffs’ claim, there must be enough alleged to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” The plaintiffs sought to deny the debtors’ discharge under § 727(a)(4)(C), which relates to a debtor who knowingly, in connection with a case, gave or received something as an inducement to act (or to forebear from acting). This section essentially relates to bribery or extortion in connection with a bankruptcy case; the complaint featured no factual allegations to support such a claim. The Court also agreed with the debtors that a claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) was not plausible on its face. Both counts were dismissed.

Statute/Rule References:
11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(C) -- Bribery of Officials in Connection with Case


Date: 
Friday, June 3, 2011