Obama Citizenship

Chrysler Bankruptcy: Motion to Reconsider Filed; FBN Video

By Phil

Monday, January 4, 2010 Update:

Attorney Leo Donofrio posted an update with a FoxBusiness.com video (going to the video’s link brings up a rather rough transcript where Messrs. Donofrio and Pidgeon are specifically referenced).

—-

Following up on a continuing story regarding the Chrysler bankruptcy rulings, attorneys Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon filed a Rule 60 Motion to Reconsider on behalf of 21 Chrysler dealers on December 25:

The public may view the documents by visiting the following URL

http://www.kccllc.net/chryslercommittee

Then click ?Court Documents? (on the left hand side of the page) ?

The entire docket will come up.  The Omnibus Motion to Reconsider is Docket number 6132.  It  was filed on 12/25/09 at about 11:15 PM ET. Steve and I have also entered Pro Hac Vice motions: docket number 6130 for Steve and 6131 for me.

The documents are listed in the docket as representing ?South Holland Dodge?, but in the papers Island Jeep (James Anderer) is listed as lead Movant.   21 dealers are listed in the actual papers filed with the court.

To view the documents in the court system, click ?images? at the far right of the docket entry and you will see the following links to documents:

Main Documen?
Memorandum I?
Proposed Ord?

The memorandum has also been uploaded to SCRIBD

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24515184/Memorandum-Supporting-Motion-for-Reconsideration

The Post &  Email published an accurate report on the 26th.

As mentioned in the above quote, because Messrs. Donofrio and Pidgeon are not currently registered to practice law in New York City, it was essential that they filed motions for pro hac vice:

Latin for “for this occasion” or “for this event,” (literally, “for this turn” ^[1]) is a legal term usually referring to a lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in a certain jurisdiction but has been allowed to participate in a particular case in that jurisdiction.

Dianna Cotter at the Examiner.com who had originally broke this story further reports that additional dealers have petitioned the Court regarding this issue:

As was expected, several more dealers have joined in the suit as well. Docket number 6137 was filed today, 12/29/2009 Motion for Relief from Stay to Allow Appeal to Continue filed by Randyl Meigs on behalf of Tommy Manuel Chrysler – Jeep, Inc.. with hearing to be held on 1/21/2010 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 523 (AJG) Responses due by 1/14/2010. The Debtor in this case is the old Chrysler.

She further reported that the general purpose for the motion could be summed up according to the following:

Attorney Donofrio has confirmed a report in the Post and Email as accurately depicting the basis of their case:

Altavilla had testified that the dealers? agreements need not be rejected prior to the sale be formalized; but Judge Gonzales mistakenly related it thus in his ruling. The Memorandum of the movants explains this in detail, the crucial part of which responds to Judge Gonzales? footnote, in which he says:

?Altavilla also responded affirmatively to a question regarding whether a dealership network needed to be restructured for the Fiat Transaction to close, stating that a ?restructuring needs to occur.?

The Memorandum responded to this:

The record indicates by clear and convincing evidence that this assertion by Judge Gonzalez is unequivocally false. It gives the appearance of judicial ventriloquism concerning the most important issue related to the Rejection Motion. Without this alleged affirmative response, the record of the case lacks any evidence whatsoever suggesting rejection of the dealership agreements was ever requested by Fiat, the US Government or the United Auto Workers as a condition precedent to the deal closing.

Footnote 21 parses, ?restructuring needs to occur? by ignoring the very next sentence of the very same answer given by Altavilla. And the complete answer made it perfectly clear that restructuring did not need to occur before the sale closed.
Wherefore, after a detailed analysis, the Movants request Gonzales? order be vacated (i.e. canceled):

We respectfully submit that the averment by Judge Gonzalez in Footnote 21 of the Rejection Opinion has caused the judicial machinery to work in an alien and wholly improper manner by subverting a clear response by a key witness as to the most important issue before the Court. Judge Gonzalez, in taking this action, has caused the appearance of impartiality to be disturbed by reckless disregard for the truth. The record of the case should not be allowed to remain so defiled. Accordingly, we request complete relief from the Rejection Order.

Here is a copy of the memo supporting the Motion:
Memorandum Supporting Motion for Reconsideration

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on January 04, 2010 (boomark / email).