the United Healthcare Choice Plus Plan for City of Austin Employees and the City of Austin v. Charles Lesniak

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that courts could infer an intent to deceive when plaintiff disclosed two lawsuits but failed to disclose two others
• affirming a district court that considered the debtor’s history of disclosures to find that a nondisclosure was intentional
• considering the fact that the plaintiff failed to include his lawsuits in any of his six separate amendments to his schedules and filings as evidence that he intended to mislead
• affirming the reasoning of a district court that “took into account the fact that [the debtor] had filed four other bankruptcy petitions, demonstrating that he should have been familiar with the requirements”
• The plaintiff “had filed four other bankruptcy petitions, demonstrating that [he] should have been familiar with the requirements.”
• lower court properly “took into account the fact that [the plaintiff] had filed four other bankruptcy petitions, demonstrating that he should have been familiar with the requirements”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).