This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

Here's the plain-English gist:

- The case is about DNC and TCPA LIST SANITIZER, LLC, who filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (a way to reorganize debts). They are in Subchapter V, a faster, simpler version of Chapter 11 for small businesses. - There were two main issues discussed at a teleconference hearing on April 1, 2026: 1) The debtor asked the court to pause or slow down a contested legal matter. They filed this request on February 13, 2026. An opposing party, Cohen, LLC, objected on February 25, 2026. 2) Cohen, LLC asked the court for an order to help carry out the Chapter 11 plan that was already confirmed. They filed this request on February 26, 2026. GLEGAL, LLC joined in on March 2, 2026. The debtor objected on March 11, 2026, and Cohen, LLC replied on a later filing. - The judge did not decide the issues during this hearing. Instead, the court took the matters under advisement, meaning they will think about them and issue a decision later. - People who spoke or appeared included: the debtor’s lawyer (Paul Gordon), Cohen, LLC’s representative, and counsel for GLEGAL, LLC, among others. The court clerk logged the hearing.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

• A bankruptcy case in Colorado lists DNC and TCPA List Sanitizer, LLC as the debtor. This filing is titled “Entry of Appearance and Request for Notices.”
• Tanner Sandor, a lawyer with Cohen, LLC, says he now represents two creditors: Cohen, LLC and Jeffrey Cohen.
• He asks the court to send him all future notices, papers, and pleadings in this case so his clients stay informed.
• The document includes his contact information and the date he filed it (April 2, 2026).
• There is also a certificate showing that he served a copy of this filing to many other parties involved in the case, through email or electronic service.

• Cohen, LLC (an unsecured creditor) and Jeffrey Cohen, Esq. are filing a supplement to their previous reply in a bankruptcy case. They are adding new arguments and exhibits to support their position against the Debtor’s objection to Cohen’s amended motion.
• They argue that a specific bankruptcy rule, called 11 U.S.C. § 1123(b)(3)(B), should apply in Subchapter V Chapter 11 cases. They explain this rule works together with another rule, 11 U.S.C. § 1181(a), to determine which parts of the bankruptcy code apply.
• They cite a couple of court decisions to support their position that the rule should apply in Subchapter V cases.
• The filing includes Cohen’s contact information and a note that a complete copy was sent to many parties listed in the service certificate.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

Here’s what this filing says in plain English:

- A bankruptcy case is happening for DNC AND TCPA LIST SANITIZER, LLC. The judge is in Colorado, and this is a Chapter 11 case (which is a reorganization) under Subchapter V. - There will be a quick, teleconference hearing on Wednesday, April 1, 2026 at 2:30 p.m. You must call in to participate. The exact call-in details are on the court’s website. - The hearing is non- evidentiary and will last no more than 15 minutes. If it would take longer or needs receiving evidence, the hearing will become a scheduling conference and pushed to a later date. - The two main matters on the agenda are: 1) The debtor (the company) asks the court to pause moving forward with a contested matter that started February 13, 2026; someone named Jeffrey Cohen, on behalf of Cohen, LLC, has filed an objection to this request. 2) Cohen, LLC asks the court to issue an order to help carry out the confirmed Chapter 11 plan. GLEGAL, LLC joined that request on March 2, 2026, and the debtor filed an objection to that joinder on March 11, 2026. - If the parties settle before the hearing, the case can be taken off the agenda if they either sign an agreement the day before the hearing or someone shows up at the hearing and reads the agreement into the record. - The document is dated March 12, 2026, and signed by Judge Kimberley H. Tyson.

Plain-language summary:

• A Colorado bankruptcy case is happening for DNC and TCPA List Sanitizer, LLC. The company is in Chapter 11 (a court process to reorganize a business) under Subchapter V (a streamlined version of Chapter 11).
• The company (the mover) asked the court for a pause on two lawsuits, specifically Claim Numbers 8 and 9, while a separate legal malpractice lawsuit against the claimant is resolved.
• The movant says it properly mailed or served the motion, the notice, and the proposed order to all people who need to receive them, and they filed proof of that service.
• Some other parties have objected or asked for a hearing. One listed objector is Cohen LLC; another party’s details aren’t filled in.
• The filing lists the exact file numbers for the motion, the notice, the proof of service, and the proposed order.
• The movant did not try to resolve the matter informally before asking for a hearing.
• The movant says a preliminary or full evidentiary hearing may be needed to decide the issues, and asks the court to schedule a hearing under the local court rules.
• The filing was submitted on March 9, 2026, by Paul Gordon of Gordon Legal Malpractice PLLC, who represents DNC and TCPA List Sanitizer, LLC.
• A certificate of service at the end confirms many parties (trustees, debtors, lawyers for creditors and other entities, and the U.S. Trustee) were served with copies of this filing and the proposed orders.

• Who: GLegal, LLC (an unsecured creditor) and Gary Tucker (a person with an interest in the case) joined Cohen, LLC’s request to help implement the court-approved plan. They say Cohen’s request is good and should be granted.

• What they say happened: Tucker is a creditor and is affected by the plan. He is named as a defendant in a state court malpractice case that covers the same issues this bankruptcy court still has control over under the plan.

• Key points in plain language:
• After the plan was approved, the debtor did not have the authority (standing) to sue for malpractice because the plan didn’t give it that power.
• Because the debtor filed the state malpractice case anyway, this goes against the plan and against the court’s rule that the debtor’s own lawsuits stay under the court’s control.
• Tucker agrees with Cohen’s arguments and asks the court to follow Cohen’s requested relief.

• What they want the court to do:
• Stop the debtor from pursuing the state malpractice case and dismiss it.
• Enforce the terms of the confirmed plan.
• Award Tucker his legal fees and costs.
• Give any other relief the court thinks is proper.

• When: The filing and joinder were dated March 2, 2026.

Plain-English summary of the filing:

• Cohen, an unpaid creditor, asks the bankruptcy court to help carry out the plan the debtor already approved. Cohen wants the court to handle issues about Claim 9 and to consider sanctions and a quick oral argument.

• The debtor, DNC and TCPA Sanitizer List, LLC, opened a new lawsuit in state court saying Cohen and others did malpractice (bad legal work) during earlier help the debtor received. The court case in state court is not the place for this kind of claim right now.

• Cohen says the debtor does not have the legal right (standing) to sue Cohen for malpractice in any court after the bankruptcy plan was confirmed. In plain terms, once a bankruptcy plan is approved, the debtor loses the right to sue for most things unless the plan specifically says it can keep that right. The plan here did not say the debtor could keep a malpractice lawsuit, so the debtor shouldn’t be pursuing it.

• The plan’s rules (sections 8.5 and 10.2) were not followed correctly. Section 8.5 is about which claims and lawsuits the reorganized debtor may pursue after confirmation, and it does not give the debtor a right to sue Cohen for malpractice. Section 10.2 says the bankruptcy court will keep control over certain issues and any lawsuits brought by the debtor, meaning the court should decide these matters, not a state court.

• Because the debtor did not reserve the right to sue for malpractice in the plan, and because the plan assigns jurisdiction to this bankruptcy court for such matters, Cohen asks the court to stop the state court malpractice case and dismiss that action.

• The filing also notes past scheduling orders and deadlines. The debtor had a chance to present expert evidence about malpractice but did not disclose an expert report or respond to Cohen’s discovery, which the motion says hurts the debtor’s position.

• In short: Cohen wants the court to enforce the plan, stop the debtor’s malpractice lawsuit in state court, and consider sanctions and further arguments if needed.

• Cohen, LLC says they filed the wrong document. They uploaded Docket No. 471 by mistake, which repeated an earlier filing (Docket No. 465) instead of the intended new motion.
• Cohen, LLC meant to amend and add to the earlier motion with a new request to help implement the plan. They are withdrawing the mistaken filing (Docket No. 471) and will file a new amended and supplemented motion.
• The withdrawal was filed on February 26, 2026, and Cohen, LLC confirmed they served copies of the withdrawal to the listed parties.

• In plain terms: Cohen LLC, a creditor, has filed an updated request with the bankruptcy court. They want the court to help carry out the debtor’s confirmed plan for reorganizing the business, specifically about how to handle “Claim No. 9” and to consider sanctions and an oral argument (a live hearing).

• Who did what: Cohen LLC (the creditor) is asking the court for an order to help implement the debtor’s plan. Jeffrey Cohen, the attorney, signed the filing on Cohen LLC’s behalf.

• What the court is being asked to do: The request asks the court to approve steps that would carry out the debtors’ reorganization plan and to address the process for how the claim (Claim No. 9) will be reviewed, plus to consider sanctions and a hearing.

• Important deadline: If you disagree, you must file your objections and ask for a hearing by March 11, 2026. You must clearly explain what you object to and why. The court won’t consider vague objections.

• What happens if no timely objections are filed: If no one objects in time, the court may grant Cohen LLC’s requested relief without telling other creditors again.

• Context: This is in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case in the District of Colorado, involving a debtor named DNC and TCPA Sanitizer List, LLC. The filing also lists that the document was served to many parties in interest.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

• Cohen, LLC and Jeffrey Cohen (a lawyer) oppose the Debtor’s request to pause (stay) legal proceedings about Cohen’s claim. The Debtor asked to delay certain court actions while it fights a separate legal malpractice suit Cohen filed in state court.

• The main issue: the Debtor does not have the right (standing) to bring a malpractice case in this bankruptcy court or anywhere else. The plan they approved after bankruptcy didn’t give them permission to sue for malpractice after the plan was confirmed.

• Why the Debtor lacks standing: after a chapter 11 plan is confirmed, the debtor isn’t in control of its own lawsuits the same way as before. The plan must specifically say which lawsuits the reorganized debtor can pursue after confirmation. It didn’t include a malpractice action. Courts in Colorado and other circuits have ruled this way in similar cases.

• The plan did reserve standing for other kinds of actions (like avoiding certain claims or objecting to claims), but not for a malpractice case against Cohen. Because of this, the debtor can’t use the bankruptcy court to pursue the malpractice claim, so the requested stay should be denied.

• The debtor’s argument that a different legal rule (the Curtis factors, which usually weigh whether a stay should be granted) applies here is wrong. Those rules apply to staying an automatic stay in some cases, not to this situation where there is no automatic stay.

• The debtor’s plan also says the bankruptcy court keeps control over certain actions and interpretations of the plan. Cohen argues that, under the plan, this court should keep exclusive control over any malpractice action the debtor tries to bring, not allow the case to move to a state court.

• Even if the debtor somehow had standing, Cohen says the plan is a contract with creditors. It says all claims should be decided in this court. So a stay to pursue the malpractice case elsewhere would breach the plan.

• Cohen asks the court to deny the Debtor’s motion to stay and to allow the claim objection process in this court to continue without being paused. The filing ends with Cohen asking for the stay motion to be denied and for fees and costs to be awarded if necessary.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

• This is a bankruptcy case in Colorado for DNC and TCPA Sanitizer List, LLC. They are filing under Chapter 11 (a reorganization), Subchapter V (a faster, smaller version).
• A creditor named Cohen LLC filed a motion asking the court to help carry out the debtor’s confirmed plan for reorganizing. Specifically, they want guidance on how to handle the objection to Claim No. 9 and they also mention possible sanctions.
• The notice gives a deadline for other people to object or ask for a hearing: March 2, 2026.
• If someone objects in time with reasons, the court will consider it and schedule a hearing. If no timely, well-supported objections are filed, the court may grant the motion without telling anyone else.
• The motion and related papers can be viewed at the bankruptcy court or on PACER, and Cohen’s lawyers will be the point of contact.
• The notice also includes a certification that Cohen served copies of the motion on various parties involved in the case.

Here’s the gist in plain English:

• A company called DNC and TCPA List Sanitizer, LLC asked the court to pause (not fully stop, but put on hold) the bankruptcy case for two specific claims, numbers 8 and 9. They want this pause to last while a separate state court legal malpractice case against Cohen LLC is resolved.
• The filing is official notice to everyone in the case under the court’s local rules. It lists the deadline to object as February 27, 2026.
• If people disagree with pausing these two claims, they must file an objection by the deadline and say exactly what they object to and why. Simple, generic objections won’t count.
• If no one objects with a proper basis and ask for a hearing, the court may grant the pause without telling creditors again.
• The document was filed by Paul Gordon of Gordon Legal Malpractice PLLC, who represents DNC and TCPA List Sanitizer, LLC.
• The notice also includes a list of people and groups who were served with it, such as the bankruptcy trustee and various law firms connected to the case.