Pacific v. at Home

1 Citing case

  1. In re Donghia, Inc.

    CASE NO. 20-30487 (JJT) (Bankr. D. Conn. May. 12, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    See In re At Home Corp., 392 F.3d 1064, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied sub nom. Pac. Shores Dev., LLC, v. At Home Corp., 546 U.S. 814 (2005). And although a number of other jurisdictions have concluded that such authority exists, the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Acevedo Feliciano, 140 S. Ct. 696 (2020), cautions that while "[f]ederal courts may issue nunc pro tunc orders, or 'now for then' orders . . . to 'reflect the reality' of what has already occurred . . . [n]unc pro tunc orders are not some Orwellian vehicle for revisionist history—creating 'facts' that never occurred in fact.