Skip to main content
E.D. New York· 4/17/2014

Desiderio v. Parikh (In re Parikh)

Citations

  • 508 B.R. 572

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding that counsel's failure to review prior petitions to ensure accuracy of disclosures in new petitions constituted sanctionable conduct
  • stating that subsections 707(b)(4)(C) and (D) should be read in conjunction with subsections 707(b)(4)(A) and (B)
  • declaring that 9011(c)(1)(A) exception to the safe harbor provision applies to bankruptcy petition and schedules
  • finding that judgment denying discharge mooted contempt sanctions for failure to provide documents under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004
  • declaring that Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c)(1)(A) exception to the safe harbor provision applies to bankruptcy petition and schedules
  • “Sanctions under § 105, § 1927, and the Court’s inherent power all require bad faith, and the bad faith analysis under each is generally the same requiring clear and specific findings of bad faith.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Grossman, Hon

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

40 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Desiderio v. Parikh (In re Parikh)

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.