Hills v. First Fin. Bank, N.A. (In re Hills)

In Re SHAWN B. HILLS, Debtor.

SHAWN B. HILLS, Plaintiff, v. FIRST FINANCIAL BANK, N.A., Defendant.

Case No. 18-91109

Adv. No. 19-09002

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

December 19, 2019

Chapter 7

OPINION

Before the Court are ten motions to disqualify judge—a Motion for Disqualification Such that Further Proceedings are Treated Impartially by Successor Judge, Motion to Reopen for Relief from Erroneous Orders Entered, in Part, From Reckless Assumptions, and From Judge's Reliance on False Statements Intentionally Made by the Court's Own Officers, and Motion for Leave to File the Attached Notice of Appeal Under Extended Time, filed August 16, 2019; a Second Motion to Disqualify and Motion to Extend Time by One Day, a Third Motion to Disqualify Adding #50 Recusal Refusal Errors, a Fourth Motion to Disqualify and Response to Motion to Seal Document, and a Fifth Motion to Disqualify and Showing of Good Cause, all filed September 5, 2019; a Sixth Motion to Disqualify (This Time for Criminal, False, and Retaliatory Statements to this Court) and Motion to Set Aside Offending Order, filed September 26, 2019; a Seventh Motion to Disqualify and Reply to Interested Party's #64 Response, and an Eighth Motion to Disqualify and Reply to Defendant's #63 Response, both filed October 15, 2019; and a Ninth Motion to Disqualify and Response to Interested Party's (#62) Second Motion for 9011 Sanctions, and another Seventh Motion to Disqualify and Reply to Responsive Objection to Sixth Motion and Motion for Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. §1927, each filed October 22, 2019.

The motions filed by the Debtor and his attorney, Brian Sides, all contain angry, intemperate comments about the Court, Mr. Sides' former personal and business partner, Cristina Manuel, and her attorney. All of the motions distort the record in this proceeding, and none of the motions cite legal authority that supports the relief requested. For the reasons set forth herein, all ten motions to disqualify will be denied.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Shawn B. Hills ("Debtor") filed his voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of theBankruptcy Code on October 31, 2018. Attorney Cristina Manuel prepared the Debtor's petition and schedules and represented him in his bankruptcy case. On his Statement of Financial Affairs ("SOFA"), the Debtor disclosed $912.13 in prepetition payments through a wage garnishment by First Financial Bank, N.A. ("FFB"), within three months prior to filing. The Debtor's SOFA also disclosed $1318.88 in garnished wages in favor of FFB between June 22, 2018, and October 26, 2018. On his Schedule A/B: Property, the Debtor asserted having an avoidance claim against FFB for the prepetition garnished wages in the amount of $912.13. The Debtor also claimed as exempt the $912.13 in wages garnished by FFB.¹

In December 2018, the Chapter 7 case trustee, Roger Prillaman, filed his Report of No Distribution, stating that he had made a diligent inquiry into the financial affairs of the Debtor and concluded that there was no property available for distribution from the estate over and above that exempted by law. The Debtor received his discharge on February 25, 2019.

On January 13, 2019, the Debtor filed this adversary proceeding against FFB for the recovery of $912.13 garnished during the 90-day prepetition preference period. The complaint was filed by Attorney Brian K. Sides. Attached to the complaint as an exhibit was an accounting prepared by the Debtor or his attorney purporting to show the garnished amounts deducted from each of theDebtor's pay checks in the months prior to the petition date.

Within the time to respond to the complaint, FFB, through its attorney, Jeffrey D. Richardson, filed a Motion to Extend Time for Defendant to Plead. In its motion, FFB alleges that "[t]wo of the last three checks identified in Exhibit 'A' to the Complaint were never received and the one check which the Defendant did receive was returned uncashed making the amount received and retained by the Defendant during the preference [period] $504.87, less than the minimum preference threshold." Based on that information, FFB asked for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading so that the Debtor could have an opportunity to determine whether to proceed under the circumstances. Ultimately, however, FFB filed an answer to the complaint, admitting that it had received and cashed four checks from the garnishment during the preference period totaling $504.87 and denying all other allegations.

A Notice of Pretrial Conference and Pretrial Order was issued, scheduling the matter for a telephonic conference to be held May 9, 2019. The Pretrial Order directed the parties to "confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and to complete the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) prior to the pretrial conference." The parties were further ordered to prepare and file a pretrial statement not later than three days prior to the pretrial conference. The order provided instructions as to how the pretrial statement should be constructed and what it should include, specifically noting that it was to be a "JOINT DOCUMENT" and that it was the responsibility of the Plaintiff—in this case the Debtor—to initiate the preparation of the pretrial statement.

On April 3, 2019, the Debtor, through Attorney Sides, unilaterally filed a"Pretrial Statement," taking issue with FFB's answer to the complaint. According to the filing, the issues before the Court were whether FFB could "strip the Court of its jurisdiction by returning to a plaintiff enough money to cause the amount owed to be reduced below $600[,]" and, in such case, whether "a plaintiff ha[s] a duty to mitigate damages, trapping him into accepting a partial return of the garnishment, hence lowering the garnished total lower than $600, and thereby leaving plaintiff no recourse for an amount up to $599.99[.]"

Two weeks later, Mr. Sides filed a Request for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion to Supplement Complaint by Adding a Party (Attorney Cristina Marie Manuel), a New Count, and a New Ad Damnum Clause ("Motion to Supplement"), seeking to (1) temporarily restrain Attorney Manuel from "damaging, destroying, or altering data and to further protect and maintain said data from accidental damage" relating to information that he alleged "Ms. Manuel removed from Plaintiff's counsel's laptop via the internet and without authority," and (2) supplement the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7015 by adding Ms. Manuel as a party and adding a new count for Ms. Manuel's "various acts against" the Debtor and Mr. Sides.

In the Motion to Supplement, Mr. Sides detailed the background of his personal and business relationship with Ms. Manuel. He recounted that the two met in law school and later became law partners and started a family together. They lived together until February 2019 when there was an apparent breakdown in their relationship. As Mr. Sides framed it, upon his return from a personal trip to Florida to alleviate his symptoms associated with seasonal affective disorder, he came home "to find a 'Dear John' letter on the recliner in his living room thatfalsely accused him of acts which Cristina contended was the cause for her withdrawal from the relationship." Mr. Sides alleged that he then "further discovered that without notice to or discussion with Mr. Sides, Ms. Manuel chose to exact many harmful acts upon Mr. Sides, Mr. Sides' personal property, and worst of all his children." He also stated that "Ms. Manuel had hired an attorney to open a Family case against him in county Court." Mr. Sides complained that, after the family court case was filed, he was forced to hire a family law attorney and attend court appearances. The Motion to Supplement included references to the minor children by name and birth date.

Mr. Sides described at length his personal struggles in maintaining his relationship with his children thereafter and accused Ms. Manuel of taking his personal property when moving out of their previously shared home. According to the Motion to Supplement, Mr. Sides was also served a petition for an order of protection, which he described as "an effort to usurp the county court's authority over parenting time and decision making and to deny Mr. Sides access to his children for two years," and as an attempt to "bootstrap (false) allegations of abuse occurring more than a decade prior." Although the petition for order of protection was apparently denied, Mr. Sides accused Ms. Manuel of repeatedly using such legal avenues as a way of negotiating parenting time and decision making to her benefit.

The Motion to Supplement also outlined a series of events beginning April 2, 2019, when Mr. Sides started receiving notifications about numerous login attempts into a financial account of his, which he attributed to Ms. Manuel. Mr. Sides claimed that something similar had happened in February of the same yearand that Ms. Manuel had admitted accessing his account.

In his Motion to Supplement, Mr. Sides also accused Ms. Manuel of removing "several keys from his personal keyring[,]" including keys to a storage unit, their law office, and the office mailbox. As a result, Mr. Sides claimed to have been denied access to his personal property located within the office, including "multi-function document machines, chairs, a desk, regular and horizontal file cabinets, a shredder, an Atomic clock, decorations and stationary supplies[.]" Mr. Sides also made reference to some "tools and electrical appliances located at a campground[.]"

In addition, Mr. Sides accused Ms. Manuel of accessing a storage unit rented solely in Mr. Sides' name and removing thirty-four banker's boxes of closed case files from the couple's law partnership. According to Mr. Sides, because Ms. Manuel had taken his key to the storage unit, he was forced to cut the lock and buy a...