UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
In re:))CAMERON ALDEN MOORE,)Bankruptcy Case No. 06-19807-HRTDebtor.)Chapter 7____________________________________))MICHELANGELO DELFINO)and MARY E. DAY,)Plaintiffs,))v.)Adversary Proceeding No. 07-1236 HRT)CAMERON ALDEN MOORE,)Defendant.)____________________________________)
ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND AND(2) AFFIRMING THIS COURT’S ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the
Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend and Set Aside Order of March 18, 2008
(docket #41) [the “Motion”]. The Court has alsoconsidered the pleadings filed since March 19, 2008, including
Defendant’s Verified Response toPlaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(docket #53) [the “Response”], and Plaintiffs’
Reply to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(docket #54) [the “Reply”].On March 20, 2008, in response to the Defendant’s Motion, this Court permitted theDefendant to file his Response out of time and held the following in abeyance:a.March 18, 2008,
Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(docket #36);b.March 18, 2008, Judgment (docket #37); andc.March 19, 2008,
Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend and Set Aside Order of March 18, 2008
(docket #41).After the Court’s review and consideration of Defendant’s Response, the Court finds thatthe Defendant’s arguments do not alter the Court’s analysis and its conclusion that Plaintiff isentitled to summary judgment on the basis of collateral estoppel. The Court granted thePlaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issuepreclusion, supported by the prior judgment entered against the Defendant and in favor of thePlaintiffs in the Superior Court of California. Consistent with California law on issue preclusion,the Plaintiffs established: (1) the issues sought to be precluded from litigation in this adversaryproceeding are identical to that litigated in the Superior Court of California, (2) the issues wereactually litigated in the former proceeding at the trial on April 18, 2005, (3) the issues werenecessarily decided in the Superior Court of California, (4) the decision in the Superior Court of California was final and on the merits, and (5) the parties in the Superior Court of California and
Case:07-01236-HRT Doc#:55 Filed:04/15/08 Entered:04/15/08 14:56:23 Page1 of 2
Leave a Comment