Laserfiche WebLink
U.S.C. § 307 which goes beyond mere pecuniary interest); Morgenstern v. Revco D.S., <br />Inc. (In re Revco D.S., Inc.), 898 F.2d 498, 500 (6th Cir. 1990) (describing the UST as <br />"watchdog"). <br />20. Pursuant to § 307 of the Bankruptcy Code, the United States Trustee has standing to be <br />heard on the issues raised by the December Application. <br />ARGUMENT <br />I. Applicant Has Failed To Comply With L.B.R. 9013-1. <br />21. It appears that James Jameson failed to comply with L.B.R. 9013-1. A comparison of the <br />creditors' matrix to the Debtor's service list revealed that several creditors were not <br />served with the L.B.R. 9013-1 Notice. See Docket #51. <br />22. The Application should not be approved until James Jameson complies with the L.B.R. <br />9013-1 Notice. <br />II. Assuming Arguendo That Applicant Cures The L.B.R. 9013-1 Notice <br />Deficiency, Entry Of An Order Approving The Employment Of James B. <br />Jameson & Associates, P.C. Nunc Pro Tunc To The Date Of The Filing On <br />The Petition, August 4, 2015 Should be Denied Because Applicant Has Failed <br />to Show Extraordinary Circumstances. <br />23. After the Court denied the Applicant's first employment application, Applicant filed a <br />second Application in December 2015. The Application seeks employment nunc pro <br />tunc to the date of the filing of the Petition which was August 4, 2015. It should be noted <br />that the first Application to Employ did not seek Nunc Pro Tunc relief. <br />24. Any attorney who has not been employed under 11 U.S.C. §327 is "...simply considered <br />a volunteer if [he] seeks payment from the estate. " Interwest Bus. Equip., Inc. v. U.S. Tr. <br />(In re Interwest Bus. Equip., Inc.), 23 F.3d 311, 318 (10th Cir.1994). Further, retroactive <br />approval of employment pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §327 is only appropriate under <br />"extraordinary or exceptional circumstances." Mark J Lazzo, Schupback Investments, <br />L.L.C. v. Rose Hill Bank, Carl B. Davis, Trustee of the Schupback Investments <br />Liquidation Trust (In re Schupbach Investments, LLC)---F3d.---,2015 WL 6685416 <br />,*3.(10`s Cir. 2015) Reaffirming, Land v. First Nat'l Bank of Alamosa (In re Land), 943 <br />F.2d 1265, 1267 (10th Cir.1991). <br />25. Applicant has failed to show extraordinary circumstances as to why the Application <br />should be approved nunc pro tunc. <br />26. The UST believes that if approved and absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances, <br />that the Application should be approved only from the date of the filing of the <br />Application, not from the date the Petition was filed. <br />4 <br />