Case Information
*1 Date signed June 07, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND at Greenbelt In Re: * NETCOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., * Case No. 03-32325PM
* Chapter 11 *
Debtor. * ************************************* * NETCOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., * Adv. Nos. 04-1225PM through
* 04-1234 and Plaintiff, * 04-1311PM vs. * ANIXTER, et al. *
* Defendants. * MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
On May 4, 2004 (and on May 11, 2004, in adversary proceeding No. 04-1311), this Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed upon Netcom Technologies, Inc., the Debtor-in-Possession, and its attorney of record, Linda D. Regenhardt, on account of the failure of the Debtor-in-Possession to serve process in thirteen (13) adversary proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Counsel failed to make service and requested that the Court reissue the summonses in each of these adversary proceedings.
Counsel’s response states that this was a “clerical error” on behalf of her support staff. However, counsel misses the point. This misfeasance caused the case administrator to make *2 more than two dozen unnecessary entries. At a time when the staff of federal courts is being cut drastically because of budget limitations, it behooves counsel not to be the cause of needless labor for the overworked case administrators.
In concluding, the Court notes that at the time of the hearing, some answers had been filed, and counsel reports certain cases have been settled. [1] With respect to those adversaries that have not filed a response, the Court makes no finding with respect to the adequacy of the service of process by the method selected. A chart of all of the affected adversary proceedings is attached. cc: Linda D. Regenhardt, Esq., Gary & Goodman, 8500 Leesburg Pike, #7000, Vienna VA 22182 Netcom Technologies, Inc., 7423 Lindbergh Drive, Gaithersburg, Md 20879 United States Trustee, 6305 Ivy Lane, #600, Greenbelt MD 20770
End of Memorandum (See Attachment) *3 Adversary Parties Nature of Action Answer Rule 26(f) Proceeding No. Report Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Anixter Complaint to avoid and recover a No. No. preferential transfer. Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Citizens Bank Complaint to avoid and recover a Yes. No. preferential transfer. Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. GE CDF Complaint to avoid and recover a No. No. preferential transfer. Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. McClure Complaint to avoid and recover a No. No. Electric preferential transfer. Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Norfolk Wire & Complaint to avoid and recover a No. No. Electronics preferential transfer. Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Pioneer Electric Complaint to avoid and recover a Yes. No. Supply preferential transfer. Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Complaint to avoid and recover a No. No. Primestock/Seltronics preferential transfer. Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Rexel Datacom Complaint to avoid and recover a Yes. No.
preferential transfer. Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Rexel Inc Complaint to avoid and recover a Yes. No. preferential transfer. Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Tech Staff of Complaint to avoid and recover a No. No. Tampa preferential transfer.
Case 04-01235 Doc 31 Filed 06/07/04 Page 4 of 4 Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Valley Complaint to avoid and recover a Yes - Valley Yes. Lighting, Inc. preferential transfer and defendant’s Lighting, Inc. ---------- third-party complaint against Coakley *Pre-trial Valley Lighting, Inc. v. Coakley & Williams & Williams the Continental Ins. Co. Motion to Dismiss conducted on *4 Construction (third-party complaint) filed by third-party June 3, 2004.
defendants. 04-1236 Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Watkins, Complaint to avoid and recover a Yes. No. Meegan, Drury & Co. preferential transfer. 04-1311 Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Valley Complaint for turnover of estate Yes - Valley Yes. Lighting, Inc. property; counterclaim; and third-party Lighting, Inc. ---------- complaint against Coakley & Williams *Pre-trial Valley Lighting, Inc. v. Netcom and the Continental Ins. Co. Motion to Dismiss conducted on Technologies, Inc. (counterclaim) filed by third-party June 3, 2004. ---------- defendants. Valley Lighting, Inc. v. Coakley & Williams Construction (third-party complaint)
End of Attachment
NOTES
[1] On May 26, 2004, this Court conducted hearings with respect to its Orders. Adversary proceeding number 04-1311 was not called by the Court despite an Order to Show Cause being entered and a notice of hearing generated. That Order is included in this Memorandum.