In re Jewelers Shipping Ass'n
In re Jewelers Shipping Ass'n
Opinion of the Court
On February 28, 1989, after finding that Cross Con Terminals, Inc. (“Cross Con”) violated the automatic stay provision
In addition, we find that much of the time spent by JSA Services in opposing Cross Con’s deposition notice was excessive and/or not required, given the nature of the issues involved, and the recognized expertise of the applicant. After carefully reviewing the documentation submitted, we allow $2,000 as fair and reasonable compensation for the legal services rendered by JSA Services,
JSA has requested $236.00 as compensation for its services, which we find is reasonable and, therefore, award it said sum.
Based on the above awards, Cross Con is directed to pay JSA $236.00, and JSA Services $2,079.34, within fourteen (14) days of this Order.
Enter Judgment accordingly.
. 11 U.S.C. § 362 provides in relevant part that: § 362. Automatic stay.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a petition filed under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title, or an application filed under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (15 USC 78eee(a)(3), operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of—
(1) the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;
. Specifically, we reduced said application by one half of the requested amount for the following services:
(1) 12/22/88 — legal research re Cross Con subpoena
(2) 12/27/88 — review flies re confidentiality order
(3) 12/28/88 — correspondence to Cross Con attorney
(4) 12/29/88 — legal research re bankruptcy rules regarding examinations/depositions
(5) 12/30/88 — correspondence to Cross Con attorney
(6) 1/5/89 — telephone conference with Jim Sell
(7) 1/6/89 — review documents
(8) 1/6/89 — telephone conference with Daley.
. As stated previously, our February 28, 1989, Order did not contemplate payment for services rendered in relation to Cross Con’s Motion for Examination, thus JSA’s request for those additional fees is likewise denied.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- In re JEWELERS SHIPPING ASSOCIATION, Debtor
- Status
- Published