Murrell v. Shinseki

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the movant “cannot indiscriminately throw a bunch of adjectives at the entire [pleading] and expect the Court to strike everything”
• “[T]he estate has no interest in property the debtor has no interest in, and thus the inclusion does not materially relate to the bankruptcy case.”
• “Property the debtor has no interest in does not meet [the materiality] standard.”
• “[C]omplaints should not be a jigsaw puzzle where it is up to the reader to determine which allegations support which causes of action. Separate counts would promote clarity, and the plaintiff should appropriately organize a future amended complaint.”
• “[C]omplaints should not be a jigsaw puzzle where it is up to the reader to determine which allegations support which causes of action. Separate counts would promote clarity, and the plaintiff should appropriately organize a future amended complaint.”
• “[T]he estate has no interest in property the debtor has no interest in, and thus the inclusion does not materially relate to the bankruptcy case. Moreover, intent to defraud in a Chapter 7 case through claiming to own more property is difficult to fathom.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).