In re Schultz
- Summarized by David Treacy , U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Kentucky
- 1 month 1 week ago
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Dismissed
- Citation:
- Nos. 25-2249, 25-2439 (4th Circuit, Jan 08,2026) Not Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a chapter 7 debtor's emergency petitions for writs of mandamus. The debtor had asked the circuit "to reassign his ongoing bankruptcy proceedings to another judge, and [requested] orders directing the bankruptcy court to rule on pending motions, vacate orders entered against Schultz, reconsider orders, issue various rulings, correct the record, and conduct an investigation against his creditors for allegedly fraudulent behavior." The circuit court also denied the debtor's request for a stay pending resolution of the mandamus petitions.
- Procedural context:
- The Fourth Circuit's opinion succinctly sets out its standard for mandamus relief, stating: "Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. . . . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and 'has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.' . . . Furthermore, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. . . . "
- Facts:
- Debtor Paul Schultz filed a chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. About one month into the case, the Office of the United States Trustee moved to convert the case to chapter 7 or to dismiss it, for cause, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(2). After Debtor opposed the motion, the bankruptcy court held a hearing and granted the motion to convert. Debtor appealed the conversion order to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which affirmed. A subsequent appeal to the Fourth Circuit led to the same result. While the appeals were pending, Debtor also was a party to three adversary proceedings. Debtor filed motions in both the main case and the adversary proceedings. He sought relief from the Fourth Circuit, arguing the bankruptcy court was not resolving Debtors' requests for relief quickly enough and had made substantive and procedural errors that had the effect of depriving Debtor of due process and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
- Judge(s):
- Wilkinson, King, and Rushing
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
