ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1466527
`Filing date: 09/30/2025
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`Proceeding no. 91300227
`Party Plaintiff
`Orithyia Omada
`Correspondence
`address
`SVETLANA EISENBERG
`BREWER ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS
`BREWER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
`750 LEXINGTON AVENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10022
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: sme@brewerattorneys.com
`Secondary email(s): smeisenberg@hotmail.com
`9293191731
`Submission Other Motions/Submissions
`Filer's name Shpresa Aliu
`Filer's email sda@brewerattorneys.com
`Signature /Shpresa Aliu/
`Date 09/30/2025
`Attachments 2025-09-30 Opp. to Mot. for Judg. on Pleadings.pdf(481171 bytes )
`2025-09-30 SME Affirmation iso Opposition to MJotP.pdf(1690647 bytes )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE
`TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91300227
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORITHYIA OMADA’S OPPOSITION TO PAMELA HUNT’S
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`Opposer Orithyia Omada run club (“Opposer” or the “Run Club”), opposes Applicant
`Pamela Hunt's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”).
`For the reasons below, it should be denied in its entirety.
`ARGUMENT
`1. Applicable Legal Standard
`Applicant brings her motion under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
`governs motions for judgment on the pleadings. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”)
`applies the same standard to Rule 12(c) motions as it does to motions under Rule 12(b)(6). 1 To prevail,
`the movant must show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that she is entitled to judgment
`on the substantive merits as a matter of law. 2 In assessing such a motion, the TTAB must construe the
`
`1 See Western Worldwide Enters. Group Inc. v. Qinqdao Brewery , 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1137, 1990 WL
`354566 (T.T.A.B. 1990).
`2 Media Online Inc. v. El Clasificado, Inc. , 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1285, 2008 WL 4419361, at *4 (T.T.A.B.
`2008).
`Orithyia Omada,
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`Pamela Hunt,
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pleadings in favor of the nonmoving party. 3 Here, when the pleadings are construed in favor of the Run
`Club, Applicant cannot meet this standard.
`2. Opposer properly alleges likelihood of confusion.
`
`Applicant incorrectly asserts that Opposer admitted to Applicant’s alleged priority in using the
`mark ORITHYIA.4 Opposer has made no such admission. While the Applicant may have used the term
`ORITHYIA before October 20, 2021, some use does not meet the legal threshold required to establish
`priority.5 Instead, the Applicant’s use must be continuous.6 Here, it is not.
`To establish actual use for purposes of priority, a mark must be “used in conjunction with the
`actual sale of goods or services” in a manner that creates a public association between the mark and its
`owner.7 This mirrors the reasoning in FN Herstal, S.A., where issuing a trademark required the trier of
`fact to examine th e “totality of the circumstances— including sales, advertisements, and distribution of
`goods—in order to determine whether the mark has been sufficiently used in commerce.” 8 In addition,
`such activities should also be continuous; casual or short-term use is not enough.9
`
`3 Kraft Group LLC v. Harpole, 90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1837, 2009 WL 1098998 (T.T.A.B. 2009).
`4 5 TTABVUE 3.
`5 Emergency One, Inc. v. Am. Fire Eagle Engine Co ., 332 F.3d 264, 267 (4th Cir. 2003) ( “priority is
`determined by the first actual use of [the] mark in a genuine commercial transaction ”) (emphasis added)
`(internal quotations omitted); Am. Auto. Ass ’n of N. California, Nevada & Utah v. Gen. Motors LLC ,
`367 F. Supp. 3d 1072, 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ( “actual trademark use occurs through use in commerce ”)
`(internal quotations omitted).
`6 See Dep’t of Parks & Recreation for State of California v. Bazaar Del Mundo Inc ., 448 F.3d 1118,
`1125, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) (to demonstrate priority of use, a party was required to show that (1) “it
`actually adopted and used the marks in commerce”; and (2) “its use of the marks was continuous and not
`interrupted”); see also Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc ., 242 F.3d 1151, 1157 (9th Cir. 2001) (a
`“continuous effort or intent to use the mark” was required to obtain priority).
`7 Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Ent. Corp. , 174 F.3d 1036, 1051 (9th Cir. 1999) (emphasis
`added).
`8 FN Herstal, S.A. v. Clyde Armory, Inc., 123 F. Supp. 3d 1356, 1366 (M.D. Ga. 2015).
`9 See Dep’t of Parks & Recreation for State of California v. Bazaar Del Mundo Inc ., 448 F.3d 1118,
`1125, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) (to demonstrate priority of use, a party was required to show “(1) that it
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On June 6, 2023, Ms. Hunt (the Applicant) filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 of
`the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. et seq.). In connection with the Chapter 7 proceeding,
`Ms. Hunt admitted under oath that, as of June 2023 (nearly two years after the Run Club commenced its
`use of the Orithyia Omada mark), she had “no . . . interest”—whether “legal or equitable”— in any
`“trademarks” or “other intellectual property”:10
`
`
`
`
`This shows that, as of June 2023, Ms. Hunt had discontinued any use of the Orithyia mark. As a result,
`prior use alone is not a basis for judgment on the pleadings.
`
`actually adopted and used the marks in commerce” and “(2) that its use of the marks was continuous and
`not interrupted ”); See also Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc ., 242 F.3d 1151, 1157 (9th Cir. 2001) (a
`“continuous effort or intent to use the mark” was required to obtain priority).
`10 Exhibit A, pg. 11, 12.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Indeed, other sworn statements in Ms. Hunt’s Chapter 7 Petition, through which she sought
`discharge of her pre-bankruptcy debts, confirm that any prior use by her of the Orithyia mark was, by
`2023, discontinued. For example, Ms. Hunt swore before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
`Southern District of New York that, in 2022, she had no business income of any kind:11
`
`
`Moreover, asked to identify businesses with which she was affiliated, Ms. Hunt listed only one
`business—“The Cloth Room Inc., d/b/a Orithyia”— but explained that its operations had been
`discontinued before December 31, 2020:12
`
`Taken together, these admissions demonstrate conclusively that the Applicant has not used the
`
`11 Exhibit A, pg. 30.
`12 Exhibit A, pg. 35.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORITHYIA mark in the continuous manner required to establish trademark rights. 13
`By contrast, the Run Club’s use of ORITHYIA OMADA is continuous and extensive. The
`Orithyia Omada run club was founded in 2021 by Applicant, Opposer, and a third party, with the name
`chosen jointly.14 The club —an officially recognized New York Road Runners (“NYRR”) team—has
`grown to over 40 members and maintains a visible presence in the running community through branded
`gear, appearances at major racing events, and active social media engagement. 15 Opposer obtained a
`Certificate of Registration from the New York Department of State for the service mark ORITHYIA
`OMADA, based on first use in commerce on October 20, 2021. 16 Since that date, the mark has been
`used consistently and prominently in connection with the Run Club, establishing clear recognition and
`association by the relevant public.
`The record demonstrates that Applicant’s use of ORITHYIA was sporadic, discontinued, and
`commercially insignificant, whereas Opposer’s use of ORITHYIA OMADA has been continuous,
`extensive, and publicly recognized. Accordingly, Opposer holds priority. At minimum, any lingering
`ambiguity presents a genuine dispute of material fact, rendering resolution on the pleadings alone
`improper.
`Meanwhile, a claim of likelihood of confusion should prevail over a proposed mark if the
`proposed mark “so resembles a registered mark …or a mark or trade name previously used…and not
`abandoned, as to be likely…to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive” under Section 2(d) of the
`
`13 The Applicant’s failure to use the continuously is properly raised here. The Notice of Opposition
`identifies likelihood of confusion as grounds to deny the application. Priority of use is fundamental to
`the analysis, as is the Applicant’s failure to use the mark continuously.
`14 1 TTABVUE 2.
`15 Id.
`16 1 TTABVUE 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lanham Act.17 The mark that Applicant seeks (ORITHYIA) is very similar to Opposer’s (ORITHYIA
`OMADA): they are alike in everything from appearance, sound, and consumer identification. They also
`occupy similar market fields : promoting fitness, wellness, and branded activewear. As a result,
`registration of Applicant’s mark—particularly if it occurred without any restrictions on Applicant’s use
`of ORITHYIA —will allow Applicant to improperly benefit from the goodwill that Opposer has
`generated through its years of run club operation. It would also cause confusion and mistakes among
`consumers as to the source of the goods and services . Therefore, the Applicant’s motion must be
`denied.
`3. Opposer Satisfies the Applicable Standard for Alleging the Equitable Doctrine of
`Unclean Hands
`
`Ms. Hunt contends that the Run Club is pleading fraud, that the pleading lacks particularity, and
`that the allegations (which pertain to Ms. Hunt’s separate application for Orithyia Omada) are, in any
`case, irrelevant to these proceedings (which pertain to her application for Orithyia).18
`These assertions mischaracterize the substance of the Opposer’s argument. The Run Club does
`not plead fraud as an independent cause of action; rather, it alleges misrepresentation to invoke the
`equitable doctrine of unclean hands. As a result, the pleading need not satisfy the heightened pleading
`standard; it need only be stated in short and plain terms that are “intelligible, [give] fair notice, and [are]
`plausibly suggested by the facts.”19
`Moreover, even if the particularity requirement applied (it does not), the Notice of Opposition
`satisfies Rule 9(b). Courts require allegations of fraud to state the “time, place, and contents of the false
`representations, . . . the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what [she] obtained [or
`
`17 Application of E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1360 (1973); 15 U.S.C.A. § 1052.
`18 5 TTABVUE 4.
`19 Titan Systems, LLC v. SRI International, 2025 WL 1474312, at *3 (D. Md. 2025).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sought to obtain] [through the misrepresentation] .”20 Here, the Notice of Opposition clearly satisfies
`each element:
`• time and place : Ms. Hunt’s application to register Orithyia Omada (application
`serial no. 98850526), filed on November 13, 2024;
`• content: a screenshot of the run club’s website, falsely represented by Ms. Hunt
`as her own;
`• identity of the speaker: Ms. Hunt herself (notably under oath); and
`• object sought to be obtained : registration of the Orithyia Omada mark in Ms.
`Hunt’s name.21
`Each element of Rule 9(b) is therefore satisfied.
`Ms. Hunt further argues that any misrepresentation in a different application —which she filed
`about a week before the one at issue here —is irrelevant. This is incorrect. The doctrine of unclean
`hands “closes the doors of a [tribunal] of equity to one tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative
`to the matter in which he seeks relief.”22 Scooter confirms that unclean hands applies when an applicant
`“knowingly [makes] false, material misrepresentations of fact to the USPTO with the intent to
`deceive.”23 Applicant’s conduct falls squarely within this standard.
`The misrepresentations in Applicant’s prior application for ORITHYIA OMADA are directly
`relevant to the present application for ORITHYIA. Both applications involve the same core mark, were
`filed within days of each other, and reflect a pattern of Applicant attempting to claim rights in marks
`used by the Run Club.
`
`20 Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 784 (4th Cir. 1999).
`21 5 TTABVUE 3.
`22 Scooter Store, Inc. v. SpinLife.com, LLC, 777 F.Supp.2d 1102, 1113 (2011).
`23 Id. at 1110.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In her application for Orithyia Omada , Ms. Hunt applied to register the mark ORITHYIA
`OMADA (Serial No. 98850526). That application was based on Applicant’s representation that the
`specimen she submitted evidenced her own use of the mark to promote her own services. 24 However,
`the specimens in that application did not actually demonstrate her use of the mark, nor use of the mark
`to promote her own services. 25 Instead, Applicant put forth a screenshot of Opposer’s website, which
`Applicant represented as being her own.26 This screenshot was the only specimen bearing the full mark,
`making it an essential part of the application.27
`Moreover, in March 2025, a New York court enjoined Ms. Hunt from using the run club’s
`website to promote her personal brand. 28 Opposer’s counsel also sent Applicant a cease -and-desist
`letter, and Applicant subsequently removed the improper linkage.29
`Applicant stepped away from the Orithyia Omada run club in 2024 —a full year prior to the
`dispute regarding the first application —and proceeded to join another running organization. 30 In April
`2025, the New York State Department of State granted the Run Club’s application to register
`ORITHYIA OMADA as its service mark. 31 At that time: (1) the run club had been using the mark
`continuously for over three years; and (2) Applicant had been disassociated from the run club for
`approximately six months. These alleged facts demonstrate that Applicant knew she lacked the right to
`
`24 1 TTABVUE 3.
`25 Id.
`26 Id.
`27 Id.
`28 Orithyia Omada and Mary Darling v. Pamela Hunt , Index No. 659494/2024 (NY Supreme Court;
`The Honorable Arthur Engoron).
`29 1 TTABVUE 3 (“On March 24, 2025, counsel for Opposer sent Applicant a cease-and-desist letter
`identifying this improper linkage [ using the run club’s website to promote Ms. Hunt’s personal
`activewear brand] and requesting removal of the link from her commercial website to the run club’s site.
`Applicant subsequently removed the link.”).
`30 1 TTABVUE 2.
`31 1 TTABVUE 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim the run club’s website as her own, and that her filings with the USPTO were therefore materially
`false.
`In addition, in her application to register Orithyia, Ms. Hunt implied that she continuously used
`ORITHYIA in commerce between May 2016 and November 2024 (when she signed the application),
`she used the mark in commerce continuously:
`“In International Class 025, the mark was first used by the applicant or the
`applicant's related company or licensee or predecessor in interest at least
`as early as 04/17/2012, and first used in commerce at least as early as
`05/16/2016, and is now [as of November 19, 2024] in use in such
`commerce. . . . The signatory . . . declares that all statements made of
`his/her own knowledge are true and all statements made on information
`and belief are believed to be true.”
`
`Yet, in her sworn Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, she declared that she had no interest in any
`trademarks or intellectual property as of the date of her filing in 2023 and that her business operations
`(“dba Orithyia”) had ceased before December 31, 2020. 32 The inconsistency between Ms. Hunt’s
`representations to the USPTO in 2024 (implying continuous use since 2016) and her prior sworn
`statements to the bankruptcy court in 2023 (making continuous use between 2016 and 2024 impossible)
`is yet another basis for denying her registration application.
`Ultimately, Applicant’s general misconduct falls within the heartland of the unclean hands
`doctrine. Whether measured under the standard for affirmative defenses or the heightened pleading
`standard for fraud, Opposer’s allegations are sufficiently stated. Because Applicant knowingly
`attempted to mislead the USPTO to obtain a registration for ORITHYIA OMADA and was at least less
`
`32 Exhibit A pgs. 11, 12, 30, 35.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`than transparent in applying to register ORITHYIA, the doctrine of unclean hands precludes her from
`securing the Orithyia mark she seeks here.
`4. Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) Should be Denied
`To state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and thus survive a motion to dismiss under
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a party must allege facts that, if proven, would establish: “(i) an entitlement to
`a statutory cause of action; and (ii) a valid statutory ground for cancelling the subject registration.” 33
`Establishing entitlement to a statutory cause of action is a “low threshold, intended only to ensure that
`the plaintiff has a real interest in this matter.” 34 When adjudicating a motion to dismiss under F.R.C.P.
`12(b)(6), “reasonable inferences from the pleadings are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.”35
`Here, the Applicant provides no substantive argument in support of her Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 36
`But even if she had done so, her motion would fail. The Notice of Opposition alleges facts that, if taken
`as true, establish that Opposer is entitled to relief under Section 14 of the Lanham Act. 37 15 U.S.C. §
`1115(b)(9) (registration subject to equitable defenses such as laches, estoppel, and acquiescence).
`As discussed above, the Run Club alleges that Ms. Hunt misrepresented to the USPTO a
`specimen as an alleged example of her use of the Orithyia Omada mark. In reality, the specim en
`demonstrated use of the mark by the Run Club, not Hunt. The allegations meet the heightened
`particularity requirements for fraud. Regardless, the allegations here clearly suffice. Moreover, even
`assuming arguendo that the misrepresentation allegations were deemed irrelevant or insufficient,
`
`33 Ahal al-Sara Grp. for Trading, No . CANCELLATION 9207977, 2023 WL 372156, at *1 (Jan. 23,
`2023).
`34 Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Bio-Chek, LLC, 90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1112, pg. 5 n.8 (T.T.A.B. 2009).
`35 Kraft Group LLC v. Harpole, 90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1837, 2009 WL 1098998 (T.T.A.B. 2009).
`36 5 TTABVUE 6 n. 3.
`37 15 U.S.C. § 1064 (creating a cause of action for cancellation which may be filed “by any person who
`believes that he is or will be damaged . . . by the registration of a mark ”); 1 TTABVUE 3 (“Opposer . . .
`has a reasonable belief that it will be damaged by Applicant’s registration of ORITHYIA”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer has separately pled likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act —an
`independent and sufficient statutory ground for relief the Opposer seeks. Therefore, the Notice of
`Opposition sets forth facts establishing both Opposer’s entitlement to the relief the Opposer seeks .
`Accordingly, Applicant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion must be denied.
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Opposer respectfully requests that the TTAB deny Applicant ’s
`Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in its entirety.
`The presence of genuine issues of material facts and the Applicant ’s failure to meet the legal
`standard for judgment on the pleadings warrants denial of the Motion.
`Dated: September 30, 2025
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Svetlana M. Eisenberg
`
`Svetlana M. Eisenberg
`BREWER ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS
`750 Lexington Avenue
`14th Floor
`New York, New York 10022
`Telephone: (212) 489-1400
`Facsimile: (212) 751-2849
`Email: sme@brewerattorneys.com
`Counsel for Opposer Orithyia Omada Run Club
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`It is hereby certified that on September 30, 2025, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS was served by e-mail upon
`the following counsel of record for Applicant:
`
`Lauren Beth Emerson
`Vera Glonina
`LEASON ELLIS LLP
`One North Lexington Avenue, Suite 1200
`White Plains, New York 10601
`Telephone: (914) 824-9078
`Facsimile: (914) 288-0023
`emerson@leasonellis.com
`glonina@leasonellis.com
`lelitdocketing@leasonellis.com
`
`
`/s/ Svetlana M. Eisenberg
`Svetlana M. Eisenberg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE
`TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`------------------------------------------------------------------------x
` :
`Orithyia Omada Run Club, : Opposition No. 91300227
` :
` Opposer, : AFFIRMATION OF
` : SVETLANA EISENBERG
` v. : IN OPPOSITION TO
` : APPLICANT’S MOTION
`Pamela Hunt, : FOR JUDGMENT
`: ON THE PLEADINGS
`Applicant. :
`------------------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`I, Svetlana M. Eisenberg, declare under penalty of perjury that I am a Partner at Brewer,
`Attorneys & Counselors, counsel for Opposer Orithyia Omada Run Club (the “Opposer”).
`I submit this affirmation in opposition to Applicant Pamela Hunt’s (the “Applicant”)
`Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.
`Attached as Exhibit A to this affirmation is a true and correct copy of Applicant’s Petition
`for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. et seq.)
`filed on or about June 20, 2023, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
`New York.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
`Executed this 30th day of September, 2025.
`/s/ Svetlana M. Eisenberg
`Svetlana Eisenberg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Official Form 101 Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy page 1
`Fill in this information to identify your case:
`United States Bankruptcy Court for the:
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`Case number (if known) Chapter you are filing under:
` Chapter 7
` Chapter 11
` Chapter 12
` Chapter 13 Check if this is an
`amended filing
`Official Form 101
`Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy 12/22
`The bankruptcy forms use you and Debtor 1 to refer to a debtor filing alone. A married couple may file a bankruptcy case together—called a joint
`case—and in joint cases, these forms use you to ask for information from both debtors. For example, if a form asks, “Do you own a car,” the answer
`would be yes if either debtor owns a car. When information is needed about the spouses separately, the form uses Debtor 1 and Debtor 2 to distinguish
`between them. In joint cases, one of the spouses must report information as Debtor 1 and the other as Debtor 2. The same person must be Debtor 1 in
`all of the forms.
`Be as complete and accurate as possible. If two married people are filing together, both are equally responsible for supplying correct information. If
`more space is needed, attach a separate sheet to this form. On the top of any additional pages, write your name and case number (if known). Answer
`every question.
`Part 1: Identify Yourself
`About Debtor 1: About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case):
`1. Your full name
`Pamela
`First name First name
`F.
`Middle name Middle name
`Hunt Thomas
`Last name and Suffix (Sr., Jr., II, III) Last name and Suffix (Sr., Jr., II, III)
`Write the name that is on
`your government-issued
`picture identification (for
`example, your driver's
`license or passport).
`Bring your picture
`identification to your
`meeting with the trustee.
`2. All other names you have
`used in the last 8 years
`Include your married or
`maiden names and any
`assumed, trade names and
`doing business as names.
`Do NOT list the name of
`any separate legal entity
`such as a corporation,
`partnership, or LLC that is
`not filing this petition.
`AKA Pamela F. Hunt
`3. Only the last 4 digits of
`your Social Security
`number or federal
`Individual Taxpayer
`Identification number
`(ITIN)
`xxx-xx-6781
`23-10958-dsj Doc 1 Filed 06/20/23 Entered 06/20/23 15:41:18 Main Document
`Pg 1 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Debtor 1 Pamela F. Hunt Thomas Case number (if known)
` Official Form 101 Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy page 2
`About Debtor 1: About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case):
`4. Your Employer
`Identification Number
`(EIN), if any.
`EIN EIN
`5. Where you live If Debtor 2 lives at a different address:
`765 Amsterdam Avenue, #3D
`New York, NY 10025
`Number, Street, City, State & ZIP Code Number, Street, City, State & ZIP Code
`New York
`County County
`If your mailing address is different from the one
`above, fill it in here. Note that the court will send any
`notices to you at this mailing address.
`If Debtor 2's mailing address is different from yours, fill it
`in here. Note that the court will send any notices to this
`mailing address.
`Number, P.O. Box, Street, City, State & ZIP Code Number, P.O. Box, Street, City, State & ZIP Code
`6. Why you are choosing
`this district to file for
`bankruptcy
`Check one:
`Over the last 180 days before filing this petition,
`I have lived in this district longer than in any
`other district.
`I have another reason.
`Explain. (See 28 U.S.C. § 1408.)
`Check one:
`Over the last 180 days before filing this petition, I
`have lived in this district longer than in any other
`district.
`I have another reason.
`Explain. (See 28 U.S.C. § 1408.)
`23-10958-dsj Doc 1 Filed 06/20/23 Entered 06/20/23 15:41:18 Main Document
`Pg 2 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Debtor 1 Pamela F. Hunt Thomas Case number (if known)
` Official Form 101 Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy page 3
`Part 2: Tell the Court About Your Bankruptcy Case
`7. Check one. (For a brief description of each, see Notice Required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy
`(Form 2010)). Also, go to the top of page 1 and check the appropriate box.
`The chapter of the
`Bankruptcy Code you are
`choosing to file under
` Chapter 7
` Chapter 11
` Chapter 12
` Chapter 13
`I will pay the entire fee when I file my petition. Please check with the clerk’s office in your local court for more details
`about how you may pay. Typically, if you are paying the fee yourself, you may pay with cash, cashier’s check, or money
`order. If your attorney is submitting your payment on your behalf, your attorney may pay with a credit card or check with
`a pre-printed address.
`8.
`I need to pay the fee in installments. If you choose this option, sign and attach the Application for Individuals to Pay
`The Filing Fee in Installments (Official Form 103A).
`How you will pay the fee
`I request that my fee be waived (You may request this option only if you are filing for Chapter 7. By law, a judge may,
`but is not required to, waive your fee, and may do so only if your income is less than 150% of the official poverty line that
`applies to your family size and you are unable to pay the fee in installments). If you choose this option, you must fill out
`the Application to Have the Chapter 7 Filing Fee Waived (Official Form 103B) and file it with your petition.
`9. Have you filed for
`bankruptcy within the
`last 8 years?
` No.
` Yes.
`District When Case number
`District When Case number
`District When Case number
`10. Are any bankruptcy
`cases pending or being
`filed by a spouse who is
`not filing this case with
`you, or by a business
`partner, or by an
`affiliate?
` No
` Yes.
`Debtor Relationship to you
`District When Case number, if known
`Debtor Relationship to you
`District When Case number, if known
`11. No. Go to line 12.Do you rent your
`residence?
` Yes. Has your landlord obtained an eviction judgment against you?
`No. Go to line 12.
`Yes. Fill out Initial Statement About an Eviction Judgment Against You (Form 101A) and file it with this
`bankruptcy petition.
`23-10958-dsj Doc 1 Filed 06/20/23 Entered 06/20/23 15:41:18 Main Document
`Pg 3 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Debtor 1 Pamela F. Hunt Thomas Case number (if known)
` Official Form 101 Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy page 4
`Part 3: Report About Any Businesses You Own as a Sole Proprietor
`12. Are you a sole proprietor
`of any full- or part-time
`business?
` No. Go to Part 4.
` Yes. Name and location of business
`Name of business, if any
`A sole proprietorship is a
`business you operate as
`an individual, and is not a
`separate legal entity such
`as a corporation,
`partnership, or LLC.
`Number, Street, City, State & ZIP CodeIf you have more than one
`sole proprietorship, use a
`separate sheet and attach
`it to this petition.
`Check the appropriate box to describe your business:
`Health Care Business (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(27A))
`Single Asset Real Estate (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(51B))
`Stockbroker (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(53A))
`Commodity Broker (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(6))
`None of the above
`13. Are you filing under
`Chapter 11 of the
`Bankruptcy Code, and
`are you a small business
`debtor or a debtor as
`If you are filing under Chapter 11, the court must know whether you are a small business debtor or a debtor choosing to
`proceed under Subchapter V so that it can set appropriate deadlines. If you indicate that you are a small business debtor or
`you are choosing to proceed under Subchapter V, you must attach your most recent balance sheet, statement of operations,
`cash-flow statement, and federal income tax return or if any of these documents do not exist, follow the procedure in 11 U.S.C.
`§ 1116(1)(B).
` No. I am not filing under Chapter 11.defined by 11 U.S. C. §
`1182(1)?
`For a definition of small
`business debtor, see 11
`U.S.C. § 101(51D).
` No. I am filing under Chapter 11, but I am NOT a small business debtor according to the definition in the Bankruptcy
`Code.
` Yes. I am filing under Chapter 11, I am a small business debtor according to the definition in the Bankruptcy Code, and
`I do not choose to proceed under Subchapter V of Chapter 11.
` Yes. I am filing under Chapter 11, I am a debtor according to the definition in § 1182(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, and I
`choose to proceed under Subchapter V of Chapter 11.
`Part 4: Report if You Own or Have Any Hazardous Property or Any Property That Needs Immediate Attention
`What is the hazard?
`14. Do you own or have any
`property that poses or is
`alleged to pose a threat
`of imminent and
`identifiable hazard to
`public health or safety?
`Or do you own any
`property that needs
`immediate attention?
` No.
` Yes.
`If immediate attention is
`needed, why is it needed?
`Where is the property?
`
`For example, do you own
`perishable goods, or
`livestock that must be fed,
`or a building that needs
`urgent repairs?
`Number, Street, City, State & Zip Code
`23-10958-dsj Doc 1 Filed 06/20/23 Entered 06/20/23 15:41:18 Main Document
`Pg 4 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Debtor 1 Pamela F. Hunt Thomas Case number (if known)
` Official Form 101 Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy page 5
`Part 5: Explain Your Efforts to Receive a Briefing About Credit Counseling
`About Debtor 1: About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case):
`15. You must check one: You must check one:
`I received a briefing from an approved credit
`counseling agency within the 180 days before I
`filed this bankruptcy petition, and I received a
`certificate of completion.
`Attach a copy of the certificate and the payment
`plan, if any, that you developed with the agency.
`I received a briefing from an approved credit
`counseling agency within the 180 days before I filed
`this bankruptcy petition, and I received a certificate of
`completion.
`Attach a copy of the certificate and the payment plan, if
`any, that you developed with the agency.
`I received a briefing from an approved credit
`counseling agency within the 180 days before I
`filed this bankruptcy petition, but I do not have
`a certificate of completion.
`Within 14 days after you file this bankruptcy
`petition, you MUST file a copy of the certificate and
`payment plan, if any.
`I received a briefing from an approved credit
`counseling agency within the 180 days before I filed
`this bankruptcy petition, but I do not have a
`certificate of completion.
`Within 14 days after you file this bankruptcy petition, you
`MUST file a copy of the certificate and payment plan, if
`any.
`I certify that I asked for credit counseling
`services from an approved agency, but was
`unable to obtain those services during the 7
`days after I made my request, and exigent
`circumstances merit a 30-day temporary waiver
`of the requirement.
`To ask for a 30-day temporary waiver of the
`requirement, attach a separate sheet explaining
`what efforts you made to obtain the briefing, why
`you were unable to obtain it before you filed for
`bankruptcy, and what exigent circumstances
`required you to file this case.
`Your case may be dismissed if the court is
`dissatisfied with your reasons for not receiving a
`briefing before you filed for bankruptcy.
`If the court is satisfied with your reasons, you must
`still receive a briefing within 30 days after you file.
`You must file a certificate from the approved
`agency, along with a copy of the payment plan you
`developed, if any. If you do not do so, your case
`may be dismis