As a general matter, a person lacks standing to sue “if, for example, it is not a real property in interest.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1604, fn. 4). “The widely accepted rule is that after a person files for bankruptcy protection, any causes of action previously possessed by that person become the property of the bankrupt estate.” (Cloud v. Northrup Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 1001 (citing 11 U.S.C. §§ 541, subd. (a)(1) and 323). Where a claim becomes such property, the plaintiff debtor losses standing to assert it unless it is abandoned by the bankruptcy trustee. (Id. (citing 11 U.S.C. § 554, subd. (d) (stating that “Unless the court orders otherwise, property of the estate that is not abandoned under this section remains property of the estate”); Harris v. St. Louis University (E.D. Mo. 1990) 114 B.R. 647, 648).
Given that the bankruptcy estate includes “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor” (11 U.S.C. § 541, subd. (a)(1)), the Bankruptcy Code subjects debtors to a “continuing duty to disclose all pending and potential claims.” (Kane v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (2008) 535 F.3d 380, 384-385; In re Mohring (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1992) 142 B.R. 389, 394 (stating that “[T]he debtor has a duty to prepare schedules carefully, completely, and accurately”)) The consequences for failing to do so are significant. First, causes of action that the debtor fails to properly schedule continue to belong to the bankruptcy estate and do not revert back to the debtor. (Cusano v. Klein (2001) 264 F.3d 936, 945; Stein v. United Artists Corp. (9th Cir. 1982) 691 F.2d 885, 893 (holding that only property “administered or listed in the bankruptcy proceedings” reverts to the bankrupt); accord Hutchins v. IRS (3d Cir. 1995) 67 F.3d 40, 43). Second, the doctrine of judicial estoppel is implicated, which operates to preclude a party from gaining an unfair advantage by asserting one position in one proceeding and subsequently taking a clearly inconsistent position in another. (Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (9th Cir. 2001) 279 F.3d 778, 782).
Under 11 U.S.C. §108, subd. (a), the filing of bankruptcy can extend the time "the trustee may commence such action" for two years. However, the jurisprudence is divided on whether it applies to Chapter 13 bankruptcies.
“By filing their petitions with the bankruptcy court, the debtors, by operation of laws that initially presume the filing of good-faith and truthful petitions, received the benefits of automatic stays from the bankruptcy courts. (Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (9th Cir. 2001) 270 F.3d 778, 784 (noting that discharge of debt is not required to meet the judicial acceptance prong and that ‘[t]he bankruptcy court may “accept” the debtor’s assertions by relying on the debtor’s nondisclosure of potential claims in many other ways.’)).
“The bankruptcy court ha[s] subject-matter jurisdiction over all claims alleging willful violation of the automatic stay.” (In re Davis (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995) 177 B.R. 907, 912). “The existence of a federal remedy for violation of the stay must be read as an implicit rejection of state court remedies.” (Abdallah v. United Savings Bank (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1109).
“[A] discharge in bankruptcy voids a judgment only to the extent of the debtor’s personal liability. A discharge does not affect a judgment to the extent that it supports a lien perfected prior to bankruptcy. As to such liens the judgment remains valid and enforceable after discharge.” (Songer v. Cooney (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 387, 391 (1989).
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A) excepts from the bankruptcy discharge debts neither listed nor scheduled in time to permit timely filing of a proof of claim, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time to timely file a claim. The advisory committee note to Fed.R.Bank.P 4007 states: “Subdivision (b) does not contain a time limit for filing a complaint to determine the dischargeability of a type of debt listed as nondischargeable under § 523(a)(1), (3), (5), (7), (8), or (9). Jurisdiction over this issue on these debts is held concurrently by the bankruptcy court and any appropriate nonbankruptcy forum.”
In Schrupp v. Wells Fargo Bank (E.D. Cal. 7/13/16) 2016 WL 3753326, the federal district court rejected Wells Fargo’s argument that bankruptcy court approval of the loan modification was required.
‘The debtor, once he institutes the bankruptcy process, disrupts the flow of commerce and obtains a stay and the benefits derived by listing all his assets.’ (Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (9th Cir. 2001) 270 F.3d 778, 785). “The Bankruptcy Code and Rules ‘impose upon the bankruptcy debtors an express, affirmative duty to disclose all assets, including contingent and unliquidated claims.’ The debtor’s duty to disclose potential claims as assets does not end when the debtor files schedules, but instead continues for the duration of the bankruptcy proceeding.” (Id. (internal citations omitted)). As has been recognized in the Second District Court of Appeal, the failure to adequately disclose assets during bankruptcy proceedings may trigger judicial estoppel as to claims that should have been disclosed. (Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1613-14).
Under federal decisional authority, a Chapter 7 debtor may not prosecute on his or her own a cause of action belonging to the bankruptcy estate unless the claim has been abandoned by the trustee. (Bostanian v. Liberty Savings Bank (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 1075, 1080–1081). When a person files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, all of his property becomes estate property and must be turned over to the trustee. The debtor relinquishes all rights and interests in the estate property, and the trustee “controls the bankruptcy estate,” and therefore, “she or he is the real party in interest with standing to sue.” (Id.; 11 U.S. C. §§ 521, 542, 543; Cal. Prac. Guide, Bankruptcy (The Rutter Group 2013) § 6:17). When he files for bankruptcy, the debtor is obligated to file schedules showing all of his assets. Nonetheless, even property not shown on the debtor’s schedules is part of the bankruptcy estate. (Cal. Prac. Guide, Bankruptcy, supra, §6:44). When the bankruptcy is closed, property scheduled by the debtor but not administered in the bankruptcy is abandoned back to the debtor. (Id., § 6:440). But if the asset was not scheduled, it is not abandoned and remains property of the estate even after the bankruptcy case closes. (Id., § 6:442). As a result, whether by lack of standing or equitable estoppel, the Chapter 7 debtor cannot pursue a cause of action not shown on his bankruptcy schedules. (Id. § 6:68; See In re JZ L.L.C. (9th Cr. BAP 2007) 371 B.R. 412, 418 (noting that after chapter 7 bankruptcy case closes, nobody controls unscheduled property; the debtor lacks standing)).
The Second District found that the trial court was correct that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue her claims, as the causes of action were the property of the bankruptcy estate, but that the “apparent assumption” of the trial court and employer “that plaintiff’s lack of standing was fatal to her complaint was mistaken.” (Cloud v. Northrup Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 1005). In Cloud, plaintiff had requested a stay in the trial court to reopen her bankruptcy case in order to substitute the trustee as real party in interest or to obtain the trustee’s abandonment of her claim, which the trial court denied. The Second District reviewed the relevant case law, and in that case concluded: “The effect of plaintiff’s lack of standing, therefore, was simply that plaintiff needed to amend.” (Id. at 1010).
The Second District found that in such cases “the debtor must take affirmative steps to comply with § 554 concerning abandonment. (Bostanian v. Liberty Savings Bank, FSB (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1078–1079). Until the debtor secured an abandonment of the claim, the debtor lacks standing to pursue it.” (Id. at 1083).
An unscheduled debt can be discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. In a no asset, no claims bar date Chapter 7 case, an omitted debt that is of a type covered by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A), is discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727. (Beezley v. California Land Title Co. (9th Cir. 1993) 994 F.2d 1433, 1434).
Chapter 11 debtors in possession have such standing with or without bankruptcy court approval because they retain possession and control of their assets as part of their bankruptcy court-supervised plans to revive their businesses and satisfy their creditors. (§ 1107(a); Fed. Rules Bankr. Proc., rule 6009 (11 U.S.C.); J & K Painting Co. v. Bradshaw (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 1394, 1402, fn. 8; California Aviation, Inc. v. Leeds (1991) 233 Cal. App. 3d 724, 729).
The Second District in Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC adopted the rule of Oneida Motor Frieght, a Third Circuit case which applied doctrines of equitable and judicial estoppel to find that a debtor’s failure to disclose a lender liability claim in chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings precluded the debtor from later litigating the claim. (Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1610 (citing Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. United Jersey Bank (3d Cir. 1998) 848 F.2d 414)). In Hamilton, the appellate court affirmed that the plaintiff borrower’s fraud and breach of contract claims against the defendant lender were barred under the doctrine of equitable and judicial estoppel, because he failed to disclose the existence of the claims against the lender in the bankruptcy proceedings. (Hamilton, supra, at p.1610.) The court adopted the Oneida Motor Freight rule because it reasoned that similar to Oneida Motor Freight, the defendant bank was one of the plaintiff’s principal creditors in the bankruptcy proceedings and the events the complaint was based on occurred before his bankruptcy proceedings. (Id. at p. 1614.) As a consequence, the Hamilton court distinguished cases such as Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co. (3d Cir. 1996) 81 F.3d 355, Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995 and Gottlieb v. Kest (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 110 where judicial estoppel was not applied. (Id. at p. 1610.) Those cases either did not involve lender liability, or the bankruptcy court did not confirm a plan of reorganization. (Id).
[A] bankruptcy stay is only effective as to the party in bankruptcy; a plaintiff must proceed against nonbankrupt defendants. (Barnett v. Lewis (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1088, 217 Cal.Rptr. 80; see also Lauriton v. Carnation Co., supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at p. 164, 263 Cal.Rptr. 476)” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1488). The action against a defendant who filed for bankruptcy protection is automatically stayed by the bankruptcy filing. (11 U.S.C. § 362). If it is impracticable for plaintiff to proceed separately against the nonbankrupt defendants, the actions should be stayed as to those defendants as well. (See Traweek v. Finley, Kumble, etc. Myerson & Casey (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1128, 1135). If it is not impracticable, the severance of the action against the nonbankrupt defendants from the bankrupt defendant and allowing the case to be prosecuted against the nonbankrupt defendants would appear appropriate.
There is an “unusual circumstances” exception to the rule that the bankruptcy stay does not apply to nonbankrupt defendants. This exception arose in A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin, in which the Fourth Circuit upheld the district court's issuance of an injunction restraining prosecution of asbestos lawsuits against the debtor's nonbankrupt codefendants. (A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin (4th Cir. 1986) 788 F.2d 994). The Fourth Circuit found that the “unusual circumstances” justifying an extension of the stay arises when there is such identity between the debtor and the third-party defendant that the debtor may be said to be the real party defendant and that a judgment against the third-party defendant will in effect be a judgment or finding against the debtor. (In re Chugach Forest Products, Inc. (9th Cir. 1993) 23 F.3d 241, 246-247.) Where a nondebtor has obligations that are independent and primary, not derivative of those of the debtor-in-bankruptcy the unusual circumstances exception simply does not apply. (In re Chugach Forest Products, Inc. (9th Cir. 1993) 23 F.3d 241, 247.) Even if there is an argument made that the unusual circumstances exception applies under the circumstances, the bankruptcy stay is not automatically applied to nonbankrupt parties in that instance. The extension of the stay to other nonbankrupt defendants is solely dependent upon a motion being brought in the bankruptcy court to extend the stay by injunction using the bankruptcy court’s equitable powers. Therefore, absent a bankruptcy court order there is no stay of proceedings against the nonbankrupt defendants preventing litigation against those nonbankrupt defendants. (See In re Chugach Forest Products, Inc. (9th Cir. 1993) 23 F.3d 241, 247.)
A bankruptcy court has also held: “It is clear to me that the Fourth Circuit in Robins agrees that the automatic stay under § 362 of the Code may be extended to cover non-debtors in special situations. However, to achieve this result, a debtor must proceed through § 105(a). In other words, the extension of § 362 does not occur automatically in this instance, but requires the filing of an appropriate adversary proceeding under § 105 and § 362 to achieve the desired result. (See In re All Seasons Resorts, Inc. (CD CA 1987) 79 B.R. 901, 903-904). The automatic stay does not stay actions against non-bankrupt co-defendants, the claims and cross claims against the bankrupt parties may be severed from an ongoing proceeding, and the proceedings may continue against the remaining defendants/cross-defendants. The Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of California has stated: “We are thus in accord with the recent opinion of Judge Justice in Kindle v. Fibreboard, No. TY-79-35-CA (E.D.Tex. Aug. 12, 1982). Kindle ordered that all claims and cross-claims brought by or against Unarco be severed and stayed and the remaining actions be permitted to proceed.[Footnote omitted.]” (In re Related Asbestos Cases (N.D. Cal. 1982) 23 B.R. 523, 529). The appellate court in Maximum Technology v. Superior Court (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 935 found no difficulty in finding that the bankruptcy of the defendant corporation did not prevent proceeding against the individual defendant as an alter ego of the defendant corporation. (Maximum Technology, supra at pages 938-939). Merely because a principal of a corporation has filed file bankruptcy protection does not stay proceedings against the corporation. “A proceeding against a non-bankrupt corporation is not automatically stayed by the bankruptcy of its principal. (Marcus, Stowell & Beye v. Jefferson Investment, Corp., 797 F.2d 227, 230 n. 4 (5th Cir.1986); Personal Designs, Inc. v. Guymar, Inc., 80 B.R. 29, 30 (E.D.Pa.1987). Additionally, § 362 does not bar an action against the principal of a debtor-corporation. (In re Philadelphia Gold Corp., 56 B.R. 87, 90 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1985).” Maritime Elec. Co., Inc. v. United Jersey Bank (3rd Cir.1992) 959 F.2d 1194, 1205-1206).
A debtor proceeding under Chapter 13 retains standing, concurrent with the trustee, to pursue claims belonging to the bankruptcy estate. (Kelsey v. Waste Management of Alameda County (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 590, 595–96; accord Linares v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (N.D.Cal. May 5, 2015, No. 14-CV-3435-EMC) 2015 WL 2088705, citing In re DiSalvo (9th Cir. 2000) 219 F.3d 1035, 1039).
In a Chapter 13 plan, the 11 U.S.C. § 541 definition of estate property is expanded to include “all property of the kind specified in [Section 541] that the debtor acquires after the commencement of the case but before the case is closed, dismissed, or converted to a case under chapter 7, 11, or 12 of this title, whichever occurs first.” (11 U.S.C. § 1306(a)(1)).
In Elliott v. ITT Corp., a debtor brought a consumer class action against creditors, challenging a practice known as “insurance packing.” (Elliott v. ITT Corp. (N.D. Ill. 1992) 150 B.R. 36). “[U]nderlying debts are not ‘confirmed’ in a Chapter 13 plan. Instead, a Chapter 13 plan confirms the manner in which the debtor will discharge his financial obligations…[m]oreover, even if a confirmed Chapter 13 plan did bar challenges to the underlying claims, res judicata would not apply where the confirmed plan had been dismissed. Under Chapter 13, a debtor has an absolute right to dismiss the plan. (11 U.S.C. § 1307(b)). Once a debtor dismisses the action, the confirmation of the plan is vacated and without res judicata effect….
Chapter 15 is a new chapter added to the Bankruptcy Code by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. It is the U.S. domestic adoption of the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency promulgated by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ("UNCITRAL") in 1997, and it replaces § 304 of the Bankruptcy Code. (11 U.S.C.A. § 1501, et seq). Generally, a chapter 15 case is ancillary to a primary proceeding brought in another country, typically the debtor's home country.
An ancillary case is commenced under chapter 15 by a "foreign representative" filing a petition for recognition of a "foreign proceeding." ((1) 11 U.S.C. § 1504). Chapter 15 gives the foreign representative the right of direct access to U.S. courts for this purpose. (11 U.S.C. § 1509).
The petition must be accompanied by documents showing the existence of the foreign proceeding and the appointment and authority of the foreign representative. (11 U.S.C. § 1515). After notice and a hearing, the court is authorized to issue an order recognizing the foreign proceeding as either a "foreign main proceeding" (a proceeding pending in a country where the debtor's center of main interests are located) or a "foreign non-main proceeding" (a proceeding pending in a country where the debtor has an establishment, but not its center of main interests). (11 U.S.C. § 1517)
Immediately upon the recognition of a foreign main proceeding, the automatic stay and selected other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code take effect within the United States. (11 U.S.C. § 1520). To obtain a stay based upon comity requires that the moving party do more than simply show that a bankruptcy was filed in another jurisdiction. (Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Linter Group Ltd. (2d Cir.1993) 994 F.2d 996, 999 (discussing factors considered in court’s discretionary application of comity). The Ninth Circuit, however, stated that comity is required only in instances of a “true conflict” between domestic and foreign laws. Other courts have held that the enactment of Chapter 15 has displaced the application of comity absent a Chapter 15 filing. (In re Iida (9th Cir.BAP2007) 377 B.R. 243, 257 (precluding the district court from relying on principles of comity until the foreign insolvency proceeding is recognized under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code); Oak Point Partners, Inc. v. Lessing (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2013) 2013 WL 1703382).
7 Voluntary Petition filed 12/12/16 in the Johnson Chapter 7 BK Action); GRANT as to Exhibit “49” (i.e., “Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay” filed 5/2/17 in the Johnson Chapter 7 BK Action); GRANT as to Exhibit “50” (i.e., Chapter 13 bankruptcy docket report for Case No. 22:17-bk-17849-VZ [“Third Chapter 13 BK Action”]); GRANT as to Exhibit “51” (i.e., Chapter 13 Voluntary Petition filed 6/28/17 in the Third Chapter 13 BK Action) and GRANT as to Exhibit “52” (i.e., “Trustee’s Deed Upon
ARCHIE BURDETTE VS MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
KC069436
Feb 21, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Foreclosure
7 Voluntary Petition filed 12/12/16 in the Johnson Chapter 7 BK Action); GRANT as to Exhibit “49” (i.e., “Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay” filed 5/2/17 in the Johnson Chapter 7 BK Action); GRANT as to Exhibit “50” (i.e., Chapter 13 bankruptcy docket report for Case No. 22:17-bk-17849-VZ [“Third Chapter 13 BK Action”]); GRANT as to Exhibit “51” (i.e., Chapter 13 Voluntary Petition filed 6/28/17 in the Third Chapter 13 BK Action) and GRANT as to Exhibit “52” (i.e., “Trustee’s Deed Upon
ARCHIE BURDETTE VS MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
KC069436
May 03, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Foreclosure
Plaintiff contends the running of the statute of limitations was tolled under federal bankruptcy law, specifically 11 U.S.C. §108, subd. (a). To that end, plaintiff's second amended complaint pleads that she filed bankruptcy (SAC ¶ 44), a fact which Whirlpool admits in its demurrer (Demurrer at 2:16-18). There is no dispute that plaintiff's petition was filed under Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy laws. Under 11 U.S.C. §108, subd.
NELSON VS RACQUET CLUB VILLA HOME
56-2015-00467797-CU-CO-VTA
Aug 10, 2016
Ventura County, CA
The bankruptcy court converted Mr. Campbell's petition from a Chapter 13 to a Chapter 7; and then dismissed it. Plaintiff's counsel explains that the Chapter 7 Trustee's dismissal of Mr. Canpbell's bankruptcy petition came as a complete surprise to him. 3. The problem here is that Plaintiff Media 1's motion for CCP 473 relief was filed on 11/20/09, almost 8 months after the entry of Plaintiff's dismissal of Defendant Campbell on 3/23/09. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is time-barred.
MEDIA 1 INC. VS. TODD CAMPBELL
56-2008-00320136-CU-CL-SIM
Dec 18, 2009
Ventura County, CA
Collections
Collections
While the notice of stay itself remains undisputed, the mere filing of the bankruptcy without the provision of further notice to the bona fide purchaser for value will not render any valid sale void. Plaintiff relies on the dismissal of two prior Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions on December 30, 2022, and May 12, 2023, thereby barring the third Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition filed on May 16, 2023 as any basis of a valid stay.
23CHCV01716
Aug 24, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Mar. 30, 2018, No. 15-CV-0245-JD) 2018 WL 1566821 [“A Chapter 13 debtor…has standing to bring a claim in his own name for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate, but not for his own personal benefit. Where, as here, a Chapter 13 debtor has not disclosed legal claims in his bankruptcy proceeding, he cannot claim to be bringing them for the benefit of his estate.”].)
CVRALPH THEODULE ET AL VS BANK OF AMERICA VS. BANK OF AMERICA
. (RJN, Ex. 4.) In
Jul 18, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
Plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 in April 2010 and was discharged under Chapter 7 in November 2010. Moving RJN, Exh. 3. In May 2014 a California Declaration of due diligence asserting the loan servicer attempted to contact the borrower to assess his/her financial situation was recorded. RJN, Exh. 6, last page. Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded on September 30, 2014. Complaint, Exh. A. Plaintiff was given a loan modification which was recorded on April 8, 2015. Complaint, Exh.
ERROL G. ERSKINE VS NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING COMPANY ET AL.
STK-CV-URP-2018-0000463
Aug 07, 2018
San Joaquin County, CA
Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles), Case No. 2:17-bk-21491-SK (Bankruptcy Case); 12. Petition for Chapter 13 Case filed by Kumchai Kim Miyahara in the Bankruptcy Case; 13. Schedules for Chapter 13 Case filed by Kumchai Kim Miyahara in the Bankruptcy Case; 14. Chapter 13 Plan filed by Kumchai Kim Miyahara in the Bankruptcy Case; 15. Order Confirming Chapter 13 Plan in the Bankruptcy Case; 16.
KUMCHAI MIYAHARA VS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A, A BUSINESS ENTITY
20STCV44166
Nov 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles), Case No. 2:17-bk-21491-SK (Bankruptcy Case); 12. Petition for Chapter 13 Case filed by Kumchai Kim Miyahara in the Bankruptcy Case; 13. Schedules for Chapter 13 Case filed by Kumchai Kim Miyahara in the Bankruptcy Case; 14. Chapter 13 Plan filed by Kumchai Kim Miyahara in the Bankruptcy Case; 15. Order Confirming Chapter 13 Plan in the Bankruptcy Case; 16.
KUMCHAI MIYAHARA VS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A, A BUSINESS ENTITY
20STCV44166
Nov 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles), Case No. 2:17-bk-21491-SK (Bankruptcy Case); 12. Petition for Chapter 13 Case filed by Kumchai Kim Miyahara in the Bankruptcy Case; 13. Schedules for Chapter 13 Case filed by Kumchai Kim Miyahara in the Bankruptcy Case; 14. Chapter 13 Plan filed by Kumchai Kim Miyahara in the Bankruptcy Case; 15. Order Confirming Chapter 13 Plan in the Bankruptcy Case; 16.
KUMCHAI MIYAHARA VS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A, A BUSINESS ENTITY
20STCV44166
Nov 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles), Case No. 2:17-bk-21491-SK (Bankruptcy Case); 12. Petition for Chapter 13 Case filed by Kumchai Kim Miyahara in the Bankruptcy Case; 13. Schedules for Chapter 13 Case filed by Kumchai Kim Miyahara in the Bankruptcy Case; 14. Chapter 13 Plan filed by Kumchai Kim Miyahara in the Bankruptcy Case; 15. Order Confirming Chapter 13 Plan in the Bankruptcy Case; 16.
KUMCHAI MIYAHARA VS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A, A BUSINESS ENTITY
20STCV44166
Nov 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles), Case No. 2:17-bk-21491-SK (Bankruptcy Case); 12. Petition for Chapter 13 Case filed by Kumchai Kim Miyahara in the Bankruptcy Case; 13. Schedules for Chapter 13 Case filed by Kumchai Kim Miyahara in the Bankruptcy Case; 14. Chapter 13 Plan filed by Kumchai Kim Miyahara in the Bankruptcy Case; 15. Order Confirming Chapter 13 Plan in the Bankruptcy Case; 16.
KUMCHAI MIYAHARA VS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A, A BUSINESS ENTITY
20STCV44166
Nov 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The dismissal order entered on March 29, 2011 in Plaintiffs Chapter 13 bankruptcy case filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 11- 18922. H. The dismissal order entered on July 1, 2016 in Plaintiff's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 16- 17806. I.
GARY NEWTON VS WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK ET AL
BC645647
Apr 17, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
On May 31, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings, informing the court that Defendant filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California on May 30, 2023. (May 31, 2023 Notice of Stay of Proceedings.) Upon the filing of a bankruptcy proceeding, federal bankruptcy law imposes an automatic stay on all state and federal proceedings outside the bankruptcy court against the debtor and the debtors property.
KIMBERLINA WHETTAM & ASSOCIATES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ERIC BRUGET, ET AL.
22STCV10556
Aug 15, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court takes judicial notice of the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust, plaintiffs' Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Petition filed on June 21, 2019, the Trustee's Motion to Dismiss and Order entered on August 30, 2019, dismissing the petition because plaintiffs failed to file schedules, and plaintiffs' Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Petition and Schedules filed on September 10, 2019.
BRAMBERG VS WELLS FARGO BANK NA
37-2019-00024322-CU-OR-CTL
Jan 23, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
Defendant argues this action cannot proceed because he filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in September 2021, so the automatic stay applies. Under Cal. Evid. Code §452 (d), this court takes judicial notice of the petition filed by Lloyd Bond Rogers in California Central Bankruptcy Court on September 20, 2021, case No. 2:21-BK-17342. The unlawful detainer action was filed on January 31, 2022, after defendants Chapter 7 automatic stay went into effect.
MONTANA BWB, LLLC. VS LLOYD ROGERS
22SMCV00151
Jun 07, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The court has been advised that defendant, through her attorney of record, filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Petition on December 12, 2017. Although the bankruptcy filing is under a different last name, the primary debt appears to be the $1.7 million judgment obtained in this case. Defendant, through her counsel, filed a reply to the motion to set aside and vacate the judgment on December 22, 2017.
LAW OFFICES OF EVAN L. GINSBURG V. SAVIN ()
30-2016-00892925-CU-BC-CJC
Jan 04, 2018
Orange County, CA
Louis University (E.D.Mo.1990) 114 B.R. 647, 648 [debtor's cause of action for age and sex discrimination in employment became property of bankruptcy estate upon filing of Chapter 7 proceeding]; Cain v. Hyatt (E.D.Pa.1989) 101 B.R. 440, 442 [debtor's cause of action for illegal termination in violation of human rights law became property of bankruptcy estate upon filing of Chapter 7 proceeding].) Complete unanimity has not been reached on this point, however.
AFFILIATED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES V. VANDYKE
PC-20120541
Jun 22, 2017
El Dorado County, CA
App. 4th 1075, 1080-1082: "A trustee in bankruptcy is the representative of the estate. ([11 U.S.C. § 323(a).) 4 A trustee in bankruptcy has the capacity to sue and to be sued. (§ 323(b).) Under federal decisional authority, a chapter 7 debtor may not prosecute on his or her own a cause of action belonging to the bankruptcy estate unless the claim has been abandoned by the trustee. [Citations.]
FERMIN VS DEUTSCHE BANK
56-2010-00367066-CU-OR-VTA
Jul 06, 2010
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
Under federal decisional authority, a Chapter 7 debtor may not prosecute on his or her own a cause of action belonging to the bankruptcy estate unless the claim has been abandoned by the trustee. Bostanian v. Liberty Savings Bank (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 1075, 1080–81. When a person files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, all of his property becomes estate property and must be turned over to the trustee. The debtor relinquishes all rights and interests in the estate property. 11 U.S. C. §§ 521, 542, 543. Cal. Prac.
STRAN VS. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
30-2016-00893899-CU-OR-CJC
Sep 11, 2017
Orange County, CA
When he filed the subject Complaint on 12/8/16, he continued to obtain relief from bankruptcy (the order confirming the Chapter 13 plan was signed 1/4/17), but did not amend his bankruptcy asset schedule until two days after the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the Chapter 13 on 6/12/17. (Plaintiff’s RJN Exhibit B, Bank RJN Exhibit 4) In order the protect the integrity of the courts, judicial estoppel applies here and the demurrer based on judicial estoppel is sustained without leave to amend.
HUBER V US BANK NAT’L ASSOC.
16CV03208
Oct 25, 2018
Santa Cruz County, CA
App. 4th 1075, 1080-1082: "A trustee in bankruptcy is the representative of the estate. ([11 U.S.C. § 323(a).) A trustee in bankruptcy has the capacity to sue and to be sued. (§ 323(b).) Under federal decisional authority, a chapter 7 debtor may not prosecute on his or her own a cause of action belonging to the bankruptcy estate unless the claim has been abandoned by the trustee. [Citations.]
FERMIN VS DEUTSCHE BANK
56-2010-00367066-CU-OR-VTA
Sep 07, 2010
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
SCV-271221, First Technology Federal Credit Union v Roberts This matter is on calendar for the motion of Plaintiff First Technology Federal Credit Union (“Plaintiff”) for an order vacating the judgment entered against Defendant Michael W. Roberts (“Defendant”) on November 28, 2022 and dismissing the entire action without prejudice. Plaintiff states that the foregoing is necessary due to the fact that a judgment was entered against Defendant after Defendant filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy action.
FIRST TECHNOLOGY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VS ROBERTS
SCV-271221
Apr 05, 2023
Sonoma County, CA
] … (C) An individual who has filed a case under Chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of Title 11 of the United States Code and the bankruptcy court has not entered an order closing or dismissing the bankruptcy case, or granting relief from a stay of foreclosure. (Civ. Code, § 2920.5, subd. (c).) Defendant argues that plaintiffs are not borrowers because they “surrendered” the subject residence in their Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
KHURANA VS. CITIMORTGAGE
MSC17-00101
Feb 20, 2020
Steve K. Austin
Contra Costa County, CA
The relevant facts are as follows: Plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Petition on November 6, 2009. (FAC ¶15.) Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed an adversarial Complaint alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and quiet title. (Id. ¶16.) A settlement was reached and an Order was entered on January 14, 2011. (Id. ¶17, Ex. A.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant in in breach of the Settlement Agreement due to fraud, thus necessitating the filing of this suit. (See Id. ¶26.)
ERNESTO ESPINOZA VS. SERGIO PRASLIN
VC066017
Aug 31, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
But Wells Fargo fails to state whether a debtor in a Chapter 7 proceeding must obtain court approval for a loan modification and fails to explain how conversion from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 affects the application of section 364 to the proceeding.
PINA VS. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
30-2015-00814684-CU-OR-CJC
Mar 10, 2017
Orange County, CA
Rogers, Case No. 22SMCV00151 Hearing Date June 24, 2022 Motion to Continue Trial Date Pending Conclusion of Bankruptcy (UNOPPOSED) Defendant states that contrary to plaintiffs prior representation to this court, his chapter 7 federal bankruptcy case is still pending, and the automatic stay is still in place. Defendant seeks to continue trial pending the conclusion of his bankruptcy.
MONTANA BWB, LLLC. VS LLOYD ROGERS
22SMCV00151
Jun 24, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Rogers, Case No. 22SMCV00151 Hearing Date July 14, 2022 (continued from June 24, 2022) Motion to Continue Trial Date Pending Conclusion of Bankruptcy (UNOPPOSED) Defendant states that contrary to plaintiffs prior representation to this court, his chapter 7 federal bankruptcy case is still pending, and the automatic stay is still in place. Defendant seeks to continue trial pending the conclusion of his bankruptcy.
MONTANA BWB, LLLC. VS LLOYD ROGERS
22SMCV00151
Jul 14, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
“Under federal decisional authority, a Chapter 7 debtor may not prosecute on his or her own a cause of action belonging to the bankruptcy estate unless the claim has been abandoned by the trustee.” (Bostanian v. Liberty Savings Bank (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 1075, 1081.) There is no indication that the trustee has abandoned the claims at issue, and there is nothing on record indicating that the bankruptcy case has been dismissed.
ADD2NET, INC. VS. FAST DATA CORPORATION
30-2016-00894148-CU-BT-CJC
Aug 15, 2019
Orange County, CA
In this case, plaintiffs knew they had claims against defendant since they filed this lawsuit about a week and half before filing for bankruptcy and were represented in both actions by the same counsel. See Complaint filed April 4, 2018 (ROA 2) and RJN, Ex. 9, Chapter 13 Voluntary Bankruptcy Petition filed April 13, 2018. Plaintiffs’ disclosed defendant as a secured creditor and the amount of the loan in their Second Amended Chapter 13 Plan (RJN, Ex. 11), which was confirmed by the bankruptcy court.
POWERS VS TRINITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC
30-2018-00983981
Mar 16, 2020
Orange County, CA
In this case, plaintiffs knew they had claims against defendant since they filed this lawsuit about a week and half before filing for bankruptcy and were represented in both actions by the same counsel. See Complaint filed April 4, 2018 (ROA 2) and RJN, Ex. 9, Chapter 13 Voluntary Bankruptcy Petition filed April 13, 2018. Plaintiffs’ disclosed defendant as a secured creditor and the amount of the loan in their Second Amended Chapter 13 Plan (RJN, Ex. 11), which was confirmed by the bankruptcy court.
GARY ALAN POWERS VS. TRINITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC
30-2018-00983981-CU-OR-CJC
Mar 16, 2020
Orange County, CA
Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs’ action is barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel due to Plaintiffs’ failure to schedule their present claims as assets during either their Chapter 7 bankruptcy or their subsequent Chapter 13 bankruptcy (which was filed on December 19, 2014 and terminated on December 21, 2016). Plaintiffs’ opposition fails to address these meritorious bankruptcy-related arguments issue and, therefore, are deemed conceded.
GARY JEFFERSON ET AL VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC ET AL
BC648980
Jul 31, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Powell in Support Thereon (Dkt. 100) filed 05/01/19 on behalf of Lupe Andrade Powell in the Idleman Bankruptcy Case. Exhibit 5 attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the Order Granting Chapter 7 Trustee’s Motion for Order Approving Sale and Compromise of Controversy Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019, filed and entered 05/20/2019 in the Idleman Bankruptcy Case.
LUPE POWELL VS LUCIE IDLEMAN ET AL
BC626424
Aug 06, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Continued Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs Plaintiff received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in September, 2018. (See Low Decl. and Exhibits.) A Chapter 7 discharge relieves an individual debtor from personal liability for all debts that arose before the date of the order for relief under Chapter 7, except for non-dischargeable debts. The “order for relief” means the date on which the debtor filed her bankruptcy petition. (11 USC § 767(b), § 301(b); Cal. Prac.
VALERIE ROMERO VS. FULLERTON SURGICAL CENTER
30-2014-00753368-CU-PO-CJC
Jan 04, 2018
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff sets forth that defendant Mohammad Iqbal filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy on April 8, 2021, effectuating an automatic stay against existing creditors. (Plaintiff’s opposition to demurrer, p. 5.) A bankruptcy petition operates as a stay of “any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate….” (11 U.S.C. §§ 362, subds. (a), (a)(3).)
CV-2021-1229
Jul 22, 2022
Yolo County, CA
On 12/29/16, Plaintiff filed a notice of stay based on her filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on 12/16/16. On 12/22/16, Defendants filed an ex parte application to compel Plaintiff’s deposition, which was continued to 1/31/17. On 1/31/17, the Court lifted the bankruptcy stay and granted the application to compel Plaintiff’s deposition, ordering the deposition to be completed before 2/10/17. Court trial is set for 7/28/17; all-purpose status conference for 3/24/17.
TERESA JEAN MOORE VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICES LLC ET AL
BC619573
Mar 24, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
That when Plaintiffs’ home was burglarized in August 2014, Plaintiff provided Federal with Proof of Loss for the stolen personal property, including the subject jewelry. (UMFs 15-16.) i. That Federal denied Plaintiff’s claim based upon the chapter 7 bankruptcy filing which did not include the subject jewelry and thus denied Plaintiff’s claim on the basis of the bar imposed by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. (UMF 17.)
SHUSHANIK MAKARYAN ET AL VS CHUBB INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL
BC582462
Nov 15, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
This is in contrast with cases under Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, where actual knowledge without notice of the bankruptcy by a creditor will satisfy due process concerns with respect to treatment of its claim. ( In re S.N.A. Nut Co. (BC ND IL 1996) 198 BR 541, 544.) Defendant also argues it was not required to give notice under FRBP 2002(a) because & the clerk, or some other person as the court may direct must do so. (Reply, 4:11-19.)
GEVORK GEVORKYAN VS VIGEN SARKISYAN, ET AL.
19STCV10925
Aug 10, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
PLM argues that the FAC is meritless because the Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge had no impact on the DOT secured against the real property, which is reflected in the Order of Chapter 7 Discharge. PLM asserts that Plaintiff’s personal liability was discharged, but not the second position DOT. PLM also argues that failure of a secured creditor to file a proof of claim in the bankruptcy did not result in a release of the DOT.
GARCIA VS PLM LENDER SERVICES, INC.
CVRI2303280
Mar 04, 2024
Riverside County, CA
PLM argues that the FAC is meritless because the Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge had no impact on the DOT secured against the real property, which is reflected in the Order of Chapter 7 Discharge. PLM asserts that Plaintiff’s personal liability was discharged, but not the second position DOT. PLM also argues that failure of a secured creditor to file a proof of claim in the bankruptcy did not result in a release of the DOT.
GARCIA VS PLM LENDER SERVICES, INC.
CVRI2303280
Mar 02, 2024
Riverside County, CA
PLM argues that the FAC is meritless because the Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge had no impact on the DOT secured against the real property, which is reflected in the Order of Chapter 7 Discharge. PLM asserts that Plaintiff’s personal liability was discharged, but not the second position DOT. PLM also argues that failure of a secured creditor to file a proof of claim in the bankruptcy did not result in a release of the DOT.
GARCIA VS PLM LENDER SERVICES, INC.
CVRI2303280
Mar 03, 2024
Riverside County, CA
(See Request for Judicial Notice (RJN), Exhibits A [Chapter 7 Petition], B [Copy of Bankruptcy Case], and D [Copy of Bankruptcy Case Docket].) Karpel, aka Law Offices of Donald E Karpel, was granted a discharge in bankruptcy on April 5, 2021, and the case was closed on October 29, 2021. (RJN, Exhibit C [Certified Order of Discharge].)
HANNAH BEATON VS DONALD E KARPEL, ET AL.
22VECV00637
Sep 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
In between the O riginal L ease and the First Amendment, on April 20, 2010, Rafipoor filed a no-asset bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. (UMF No. 7.) Rafipoor failed to schedule the Guaranty in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy schedules. T he Bankruptcy Case was closed, and Rafipoor received his Chapter 7 discharge in July 2013 . (UMF No. 13.) There was no motion for reaffirmation or an application in front of the Bankruptcy Court to reaffirm the Guaranty.
9601 SANTA MONICA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS RODEO INVESTMENTS, INC. A NEVADA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20SMCV01131
Jun 20, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
There being no evidence that the bankruptcy case is pending, and with the evidence which was received of the bankruptcy discharge, the Court is inclined to rule as follows: According to the records, Plaintiff received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in September, 2018. (See 12/27/18 Low Decl. herein, and Exhibits.) A Chapter 7 discharge relieves an individual debtor from personal liability for all debts that arose before the date of the order for relief under Chapter 7, except for nondischargeable debts.
ROMERO VS. FULLERTON SURGICAL CENTER
30-2014-00753368-
Apr 19, 2019
Orange County, CA
Feddersen & Co. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 345, 350-353 [applying principles of judicial estoppel derived from federal law in barring subsequent civil action where reorganization plan had been confirmed].) Before Plaintiff commenced this action, Plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Plaintiff did not include any of the claims against U.S. Bank in its bankruptcy schedules. On December 10, 2018, an order of discharge was entered.
GABRIEL LOPEZ VS U.S. BANK N.A., A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
18STCV04062
Feb 28, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Foreclosure
The bankruptcy docket shows that MS case was closed without a discharge. As MS is a corporate entity, it cannot obtain a discharge via a chapter 7 bankruptcy. ( Wolf Metals Inc. v. Rand Pac. Sales, Inc. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 698, 708 [a corporation may not discharge its debts and liabilities in a chapter 7 proceeding.].) As such a proceeding also does not dissolve a corporationwhich must be accomplished under state procedurescorporate debts and liabilities survive the closing of the bankruptcy proceeding
KOSMAS PAPPAS VS NAMAZIKHAH DMD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV19741
Feb 08, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. They listed both the loans on the house, and a “personal loan” from plaintiff. They received a discharge order from the bankruptcy court. It appears uncontested that that discharge order, on its face, covers plaintiff’s present claims, and thus prevents either plaintiff or this Court from proceeding on this motion.
MCCAULEY VS. LOCKETT
MSC13-01980
Nov 17, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
The bankruptcy docket shows that MS case was closed without a discharge. As MS is a corporate entity, it cannot obtain a discharge via a chapter 7 bankruptcy. ( Wolf Metals Inc. v. Rand Pac. Sales, Inc. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 698, 708 [a corporation may not discharge its debts and liabilities in a chapter 7 proceeding.].) As such a proceeding also does not dissolve a corporationwhich must be accomplished under state procedurescorporate debts and liabilities survive the closing of the bankruptcy proceeding
KOSMAS PAPPAS VS NAMAZIKHAH DMD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV19741
Jan 22, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Forde also provides evidence that Shorb DCE LLC and Las Tunas DCE LLC filed petitions for bankruptcy and that their bankruptcies were converted to bankruptcies under Chapter 7. Under this procedure, a Chapter 7 trustee was appointed to manage the companies, which are part of the bankruptcy estate, and the trustee will liquidate the assets and distribute the proceeds to the creditors. As a result, Shorb DCE LLC and Las Tunas DCE LLC are under the supervision of the bankruptcy trustee and his requests.
PETER WONG VS. DAVID KWOK, ET AL.
GC041324
Jan 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Noble, who filed a joint Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition for the Plaintiffs on September 14, 2009 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California bearing the case umber 09-39676. Plaintiffs relied on the counsel, advice and inquiry of their bankruptcy attorney in completing the bankruptcy petition and the information contained therein was placed therein by their attorney.
IGNACIO GACILAN VS. RESIDENTIAL FUNDING
34-2012-00124120-CU-OR-GDS
Jun 06, 2013
Sacramento County, CA
Real Property
other
Bankruptcy Code on January 22, 2010, later converted to Chapter 7 on February 22, 2012. Defendants sought relief from the automatic stay in the bankruptcy case to pursue a foreclosure of the property, and plaintiff unsuccessfully litigated the issues asserted in the complaint during the course of the bankruptcy proceeding after plaintiff brought a motion for a restraining order. The bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay permitting defendants to proceed with the foreclosure.
CHARLES ABRAHAMS VS DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY
37-2018-00004937-CU-OR-CTL
Dec 13, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
Prior to the commencement of the criminal case, Gruntz petitioned for relief in the bankruptcy court under chapter 13. Gruntz made periodic payments to the trustee under order of the bankruptcy court. In addition, the court ordered that support payments be made directly to the children's mother but that Gruntz would have three years to satisfy the then-existing arrearage. Subsequently, the bankruptcy court converted the proceeding to one under chapter 11.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. NOEL THOMPSON
56-2013-00443717-CU-MC-VTA
Dec 30, 2013
Ventura County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
The Court issued the following order during a final status conference: Pursuant to the Notice of filing of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Bankruptcy Court Protect pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441 and 1446 on behalf of the Defendant ANZHEY BARATSEVICH, the matter is automatically stayed by operation of Federal Law. Accordingly, all future dates set in Department M are now advanced to this date and vacated. The matter is now stayed in its entirety pending the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings.
BEAU CAMERON VS. AHNZEY BARANTSEVICH ET. AL.
SC107179
Oct 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE: At the outset, defendant’s request for judicial notice (“RJN”) is ruled on as follows: grant as to Exhibit “1” (i.e., Chapter 13 Voluntary Petition filed 10/18/12 in the U.S.
MEHDI JOHARI VS U.S.A BANK
KC069579
Mar 14, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
This case is stayed pursuant to the Notice of Stay of Proceedings filed on December 7, 2012, based upon a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case pending in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, initiated by plaintiff Robert Dronberger. No ruling on the demurrer of defendants Bank of America, N.A., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and Federal National Mortgage Association can be made at this time.
ROBERT J DRONBERGER VS. ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.
34-2012-00130121-CU-OR-GDS
Feb 14, 2013
Sacramento County, CA
Real Property
other
On August 16, 2010, Huertas filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and, in their bankruptcy petition, disavowed any ownership interest in the property. (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 12.) Also included in the Huertas’ bankruptcy petition was a letter executed by Riveras stating that Huertas had no interest in the property. (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 14.) On July 24, 2019, Peak Foreclosure Services, Inc. (“Peak”) commenced foreclosure proceedings on the property by recording a Notice of Default against the property.
23CV05056
Feb 07, 2024
Santa Barbara County, CA
Pursuant to the "fresh start" policy for debtors under chapter 7, a debtor may transfer to the postpetition estate any property deemed exempt from the chapter 7 estate, postpetition earnings, and any property acquired after filing (other than that governed by the exceptions of 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(5)). [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “Where events that give rise to a cause of action occur following the filing of the chapter 7 petition, that cause of action is not property of the bankruptcy estate. [Citation.]” (Ibid.)
MARISA NELSON VS ROBERT M BERNSTEIN ET AL
BC618132
Jun 12, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Cal. 1999) 230 B.R. 418, 421 [“In a Chapter 13 case, the property of the estate includes causes of action that arise after the commencement of the case and until the case is closed, dismissed or converted.”].) Here, Harbin filed her Chapter 13 case on August 27, 2018. (RFJN, Ex. 5.) Harbin’s Chapter 13 case was dismissed on September 9, 2019. (RFJN, Ex. 5, Dkt. 49.) Harbin did not list any of her claims against Defendants in her bankruptcy schedules. (RFJN, Ex. 9.)
RENIA HARBIN VS US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
19STCV26858
Feb 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
other
Harbin filed her Chapter 13 case on August 27, 2018. (RFJN, Ex. P, Dkt. 1.) Harbin’s Chapter 13 case was dismissed on September 9, 2019. (RFJN, Ex. P, Dkt. 49.) Harbin did not list any of her claims against Defendants in her bankruptcy schedules. (RFJN, Ex. Q.) Harbin’s claims in this lawsuit are property of her bankruptcy estate and should have been included in her bankruptcy schedules. ((M & M Foods, Inc. v.
RENIA HARBIN VS US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
19STCV26858
Feb 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
other
Federal ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1373; Belnap Freight Lines, Inc. v. Petty (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 159, 164. Here, with Rehab Fitness in Chapter 7, the trustee would own its cross-claim and will decide for himself whether to oppose the demurrer or pursue the cross-claim at all. See, e.g., Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 1002-1003.
KUTAS V. REHAB FITNESS, INC.
30-2015-00822545-CU-OE-CJC
Mar 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
UF1-4. 8/31/16 Plaintiff filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California No. 16-bankruptcy-21668-Burgundy Bar. UF 5. 10/6/16 Plaintiff attended a meeting of his creditors and swore under oath that he was not aware of any errors or omissions in his bankruptcy papers.
HERZL MAROME VS FOX RENT A CAR INC ET AL
BC612889
Apr 12, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
7 or 11 of this title.
KAMRAN SADEGHIAN, ET AL. VS ARIAN EGHBALI, ET AL.
21STCV36897
Aug 23, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Meantime, plaintiff has also been in bankruptcy court, having filed for Chapter 13 in March 2013. Her repayment plan as to the mortgage account involved in this action was confirmed in May 2013. She is still in bankruptcy, however, and her debts do not stand discharged.
KAPLAN VS. SETERUS
MSL17-04648
Jun 15, 2018
Contra Costa County, CA
A true and correct copy of the Chapter 13 Voluntary Petition filed on March 2, 2011 in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, in the case entitled In re. Gary N Newton, Case No. 2:11-bk-i 8922-ER. 15. A true and correct copy of the Chapter 7 Voluntary Petition filed on June 13, 2016 in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, in the case entitled In re: Gary Newton, Case No. 2:16-bk-17806-RK. 16.
GARY NEWTON VS WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK ET AL
BC645647
Aug 17, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, Braxton filed bankruptcy petitions in 2009, 2010, 2016, and 2018. She did not identify any claims pertaining to her Loan, the Loan Documents, or the already pending foreclosure action. (See RJN Exs. 8, 10, 15, 17.) Also similarly, the instant lawsuit was filed subsequent to Plaintiff’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings.
US BANK VS. SIMONE BRAXTON
MSN19-2096
Dec 01, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
The court takes judicial notice that Mark Melchiori filed a petition under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Cal., on November 12, 2012 (Case No. 9:12-bk-14156-PC). That case was dismissed on November 20, 2012 for failure to file required documents.
STEVEN FAIRLY VS MARK MELCHIORI
1403271
Dec 11, 2012
Santa Barbara County, CA
However, defendants argue, when the matter was converted to chapter 7, standing to maintain this lawsuit became vested in the bankruptcy trustee. Further, defendants contend, the chapter 7 trustee has not abandoned this cause of action; therefore, the chapter 7 trustee is the only party with standing to appeal. We agree for the following reasons. Bostanian, at 1078-1079, italics in original.
AYMAN M. SALEM VS AXOS FINANCIAL, INC. DBA AXOS BANK FKA BOFI FEDERAL BANK, ET AL.
22GDCV00368
Jan 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Application by Plaintiff Banner Bank for Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment: On 2/19/19, the interim Chapter 7 bankruptcy Trustee Leonard J. Ackerman filed a notice of automatic stay. The Trustee stated that on 1/18/19, the two debtors Elia and Ameriali Ibrahim had filed for Chapter 7 relief. Thus, the notice indicated that the automatic stay applies to the individual Defendants Elia and Amirali Ibrahim in this case.
BANNER BANK V. IBRA FARMS RESTAURANTS INC.
30-2019-01044274-CU-OR-CJC
Apr 25, 2019
Orange County, CA
Discussion Defendant nots that “[p]laintiff petitioned for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief on September 12, 2017” and argues that “[a]t that time, all of [p]laintiff’s property, including this action, became property of [p]laintiff’s bankruptcy estate.” (Demurrer, p. 7:22-23; See RJN, Exh. E [plaintiff’s Voluntary Petition for Bankruptcy].)
CHRISTINE CHAVEZ VS SELECT PORFOLIO SERVICING
BC687513
Apr 20, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Foreclosure
Here, and as addressed at the July 31, 2018 hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Defendant has only established that there was a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge; and has failed to meet its burden of providing sufficient evidence that the instant debt is one that does not require scheduling under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(3). The Court finds that the debt arising from Defendant’s purported no-asset bankruptcy could be one that must have been scheduled.
HAN, MI AE VS LEE, HOWARD
05K01921
Jan 03, 2019
Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant alleges that: (1) the right to action passes to the trustee upon petitioners bankruptcy adjudication in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding ( id . at 5.), (2) a Chapter 7 debtor may not prosecute on his or her own a cause of action belonging to the bankruptcy estate unless the trustee abandons the claim ( id .), and (3) abandonment does not occur if the debtor fails to adequately describe the claims in the debtors asset disclosure schedule ( id. ).
23AVCP00447
Jul 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
That first bankruptcy case was dismissed on June 18, 2018. (RFJN, Ex. 6, Dkt. 68.) Coleman filed another chapter 13 petition on July 17, 2018. (RFJN, EX. 8.) On August 1, 2018, Coleman filed her bankruptcy schedules and again did not identify any third-party claims. (RFJN, Ex. 9, p. 7.) The second bankruptcy case was dismissed on November 19, 2018. (RFJN, Ex. 8, Dkt. 31.) Coleman filed her most recent chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on January 2, 2019. (RFJN, Ex. 10.)
PATRICIA COLEMAN VS CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.., A TEXAS CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV27255
Jun 23, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Foreclosure
Greenwich Inv'rs XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1609; In re Evans (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1983) 30 B.R. 530, 531 [order confirming a Chapter 13 plan is res judicata as to issues which were or could have been decided at the confirmation hearing]; Gottlieb v. Kest (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 110, 137 [debtor seeking the shelter provided by federal bankruptcy laws must disclose all legal or equitable property interests to a bankruptcy court]; (Int’l Engine Parts, Inc. v. Feddersen & Co. (1998) 64 Cal.
POWERS VS TRINITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC
30-2018-00983981
Nov 09, 2020
Orange County, CA
) [5] (Reply p. 3: 9-13 [Defendant is surprised by the bankruptcy schedule claiming an interest in the real property. Defendant avers his bankruptcy counsel likely preemptively included the residence in the bankruptcy schedule based on counsel's own legal interpretation as a good faith extension of application of the law, in an attempt to confirm a Chapter 13 plan of reorganization, as opposed to a Chapter 7. Defendant's counsel cannot speculate, and need not, as it is irrelevant.].
INVESTMENT RETRIEVERS INC, VS SCOTT LEE
KC052751
Jan 08, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Liberty Savings Bank (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1082 [“We respectfully disagree with those cases which suggest (because the opinion fails to reveal the chapter under which the bankruptcy petition was filed) or hold that a Chapter 7 debtor has standing to continue to prosecute a pending cause of action which has become property of the estate”]. 5.
MARISA NELSON VS ROBERT M BERNSTEIN ET AL
BC618132
Dec 19, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant thereafter filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff obtained a judgment in United States Bankruptcy Court that the default judgment was a non-dischargeable debt under federal bankruptcy law. On October 6, 2017, the bankruptcy court returned the 2014 judgment to this Court. On January 5, 2018, Plaintiff was issued an Abstract of Judgment in the amount of $57,493.07 and a Writ of Execution in the amount of $57,968.07.
HANK MINARDO V. R&S LANDSCAPE INC.
CV09-0264
Feb 22, 2018
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Defendants’ moving papers include an order from the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of California demonstrating Defendant Haddad was granted a Chapter 7 discharge on October 26, 2012. (Mot., Exh. B.)
LAM10K13371
Jun 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(RJN Exh. 5.) 1 Defendants contend that they had no obligation under section 2923.6 prior to the filing of the complaint because Plaintiff Camille Carter was in active bankruptcy. (See Oppo. 15.) On March 16, 2016, Plaintiff Camille Carter filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief. (RJN Exh. 6.)
CLARISSA N ESQUERRA VS MA GABRIELA ASCENCION ET AL
BC602389
Sep 22, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
On September 14, 2010, the Butlers filed for reorganization bankruptcy under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. (Complaint, ¶ 10; Kroll decl., ¶ 5.) On April 7, 2011, the Butlers re-filed their bankruptcy under chapter 7. (Complaint, ¶ 11.) Also on April 7, Bank tendered a claim to Chicago Title under the title insurance policy based upon the erroneous reconveyance. (Kroll decl., ¶ 6.)
PACIFIC CAPITAL BANK & TRUST VS FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE ETC
1413315
Jan 09, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
Plaintiff has failed to respond to the legal arguments raised by defendants, including why he should not be judicially estopped from raising claims after he failed to raise them in his three bankruptcy petitions, and had his Chapter 13 plan confirmed. The debtor has a duty to disclose potential claims as assets does not end when the debtor files schedules, but instead continues for the duration of the bankruptcy proceeding. Plaintiff has failed to refute the claims as to the 2007 loan origination.
DALE A DAWALT VS. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC
37-2018-00029553-CU-OR-CTL
Nov 15, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
However, defendants argue, when the matter was converted to chapter 7, standing to maintain this lawsuit became vested in the bankruptcy trustee. Further, defendants contend, the chapter 7 trustee has not abandoned this cause of action; therefore, the chapter 7 trustee is the only party withstanding to appeal. We agree for the following reasons. Bostanian, at 1078-1079, italics in original.
AYMAN M. SALEM VS AXOS FINANCIAL, INC. DBA AXOS BANK FKA BOFI FEDERAL BANK, ET AL.
22GDCV00368
Aug 12, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Michael Hopper, Chapter 7 Trustee. Plaintiff subsequently moved for relief from the stay in October 2015, informing the Court that the bankruptcy court filed a motion to remand and a motion to abandon the estate. Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition. Accordingly, the Court issued an order on October 23, 2015, lifting the stay and returning the case to trial setting. Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss.
SHARON WALLACE VS. JO-ANN STORES INC
34-2010-00078047-CU-PO-GDS
Mar 21, 2016
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendant submits the bankruptcy filings, including the August 24, 2020 bankruptcy petition, and the March 12, 2021 stipulation and order converting the bankruptcy to Chapter 7.
AYMAN M. SALEM VS AXOS FINANCIAL, INC. DBA AXOS BANK FKA BOFI FEDERAL BANK, ET AL.
22GDCV00368
Oct 20, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(Chapter 13 filed on June 21, 2018) [Docket, RJN, Ex. "V".] Dismissed for failure to file information on July 23, 2018. [RJN, Ex. "V".] - In re Arlene Garcia, No. 19-01072-LA13. (Chapter 13 filed on February 28, 2019) [Docket, RJN, Ex. "W"; Petition, RJN, Ex. "X", "W".] "The Bankruptcy Code and Rules impose upon the bankruptcy debtors an express, affirmative duty to disclose all assets, including contingent and liquidated claims.
GARCIA VS QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION
37-2018-00051040-CU-OR-CTL
Jul 11, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
Motion to Dismiss: Bankruptcy Injunction On 01/09/13, defendant Frank filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Included in the schedule of debts was this civil action. On 06/11/13, plaintiff obtained an order annulling the bankruptcy stay and lifting the stay for further proceedings associated with this civil action. On 01/21/14, defendant Frank obtained a discharge. Pursuant to 11 USC §524(a)(2), a discharge operates as an injunction against the continued prosecution of a civil action subject to discharge.
PADILLA V. WECOSIGN, INC.
30-2012-00553004-CU-BC-CJC
Nov 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
(See Order Confirming Chapter 13 Plan; Exh. 3 to Plaintiff’s Brief) In addition, while it would be preferable to hear plaintiff’s claims against the non-bankrupt defendants and their cross-claims against Morales at the same time, indemnity/contribution claims are sometimes tried after the main action. Given all the circumstances, the court will allow plaintiff to proceed to trial on her claims against defendants Green Thumb and Wang even though the cross-complaints remain subject to the automatic stay.
FULTON VS. GREEN THUMB INTERNATIONAL, INC.
30-2014-00753435-CU-BC-CJC
Apr 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
Concurrently, in June 2019, Plaintiff filed an adversary complaint in his Chapter 13 bankruptcy action to determine the validity and priority of the Deed of Trust. (Compl. ¶ 62.) In September 2019, Plaintiff’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy action was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to make payments to Defendants. (Compl. ¶ 67.) In November 2019, the bankruptcy court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss because Plaintiff’s “bankruptcy case ha[d] been dismissed.” (Compl. ¶ 70.)
ANDREW M. EGBE VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.
19STCV45498
Jul 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Textile Printing, Inc., has filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.
HYO DAN CHANG ET AL VS DAVID UM
BC627202
Feb 17, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
County contends that Cross-Defendant Nadias Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition has no impact here because: (1) Nadia is not a defendant to the primary complaint; and (2) County is not a party in bankruptcy, and a bankruptcy stay is only effective as to a party in bankruptcy. County argues that the Court has not otherwise issued an order staying the entire action. County further argues that Plaintiffs cannot show impracticability, impossibility, or futility.
ABDUL AHMED VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
KC070435
Mar 04, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Rockwell first learned of the bankruptcy petition in 1993, and promptly moved to convert the case to Chapter 7, which motion the bankruptcy court granted. The Chapter 7 trustee agreed with Rockwell to settle the case via a compromise in which Rockwell would purchase Ybarra's cause of action for $ 17,500. The bankruptcy court approved the compromise. The superior court granted the trustee’s and Rockwell’s motion to dismiss Ybarra’s lawsuit.
VICKY REESE ET AL VS SERGIO MINGRAMM
1417193
Dec 16, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
Rund Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee filed a notice of removal of action to bankruptcy court in re Lucie Idlemans bankruptcy petition. On January 27, 2022, the court granted cross-defendant Palos Verdes Realty, Inc.s motion to compel responses to form and special interrogatories, set one and ordered cross-complainant Christodoro and his attorney of record to pay sanctions in the amount of $345.
ATTESSA PROPERTIES CA LLC VS LUCIE IDLEMAN
YC071564
Apr 19, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
However, Plaintiff’s case remains a Chapter 13 and has not been converted to a Chapter 7. Thus, Plaintiff’s argument is based on conjecture and must be rejected under the current state of the facts. Since Plaintiff’s claims are property of her Chapter 13 estate and because her Chapter 13 plan explicitly states that estate property does not revest in her until discharge, Plaintiff does not presently have standing to pursue her claims.
VILMA IGLESIAS VS CAPITAL GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY ET AL
BC634921
Jul 19, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Defendant submits the bankruptcy filings, including the August 24, 2020 bankruptcy petition, and the March 12, 2021 stipulation and order converting the bankruptcy to Chapter 7.
AYMAN M. SALEM VS AXOS FINANCIAL, INC. DBA AXOS BANK FKA BOFI FEDERAL BANK, ET AL.
22GDCV00368
Nov 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Rund Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee filed a notice of removal of action to bankruptcy court in re Lucie Idlemans bankruptcy petition. On January 27, 2022, the court granted cross-defendant Palos Verdes Realty, Inc.s motion to compel responses to form and special interrogatories, set one and ordered cross-complainant Christodoro and his attorney of record to pay sanctions in the amount of $345.
ATTESSA PROPERTIES CA LLC VS LUCIE IDLEMAN
YC071564
Jul 20, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
First Federal Bank of California held a deed of trust on the Property in the amount of $392,905.88 (“First Federal Lien”), while JP Morgan Chase Bank (“Chase”) held a second deed of trust on the Property in the amount of $93,507 (the “Second Lien”). (Id., ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs each separately retained and employed Cross-Complainants to represent them in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. (TAC, ¶ 12.)
AFNANI, ET AL. V. THE FULLER LAW FIRM, ET AL.
17CV306307
Oct 11, 2018
Presiding
Santa Clara County, CA
On May 4, 2017, the bankruptcy court entered an Order of Dismissal arising from Chapter 13 Confirmation Hearing, dismissing Ms. Valencia for 180 days and barring her from May 4, 2017 to October 31, 2017. o On December 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Petition in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On December 1, 2017, the bankruptcy court dismissed Plaintiffs case upon the bankruptcy trustees motion. ( Id. , Ex. 16.)
TERESA JEAN MOOR VS WESTERN PROGRESSIVE, LLC, ET AL.
22BBCV00085
Jun 24, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
(a) continues until the earliest of: (1) the time the case is closed; (2) the time the case is dismissed; or (3) if the case is a case for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the time a discharge is granted or denied. (11 U.S.C., § 362, subd. (c)(2)(A)-(C).) The automatic stay and the protections it offers terminate immediately upon dismissal of a bankruptcy case. ( In re Kline (B.A.P. 10 th Cir. 2012) 472 B.R. 98, 103.)
BERRITTO ENTERPRISES, LLC A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS TAYLOR WOODS, AN INDIVIDUAL
22SMCV00971
Apr 05, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Similar to here, the defendants argued that only the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee may bring an action for fraudulent conveyance. (Id.) While agreeing with the defendants that only a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee, and not an individual creditor, may pursue a fraudulent conveyance action while a bankruptcy case is pending, the Court of Appeal stated that the “[defendants’] argument d[id] not address the situation presented in [that case], namely where the bankruptcy case is closed.” (Id.)
KOSMAS PAPPAS VS NAMAZIKHAH DMD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV19741
Oct 14, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Thereafter, on November 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Chapter 13 Petition in Bankruptcy Court, but failed to list a potential lawsuit against Defendants—included demurring Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing which is identified in the Notice of Default—as an Asset. See RJN, Exh. 9. On September 13, 32016, Plaintiff’s bankruptcy case was ordered dismissed. RJN Exh. 10. Based on the foregoing, it appears that the doctrine of judicial estoppel bars Plaintiff from bringing her claims in the instant lawsuit.
JANET MATTHEWS VS NEW CENTRUY MORTGAGE CORP ET AL
BC662335
Jul 25, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Defendant requests the Court judicially notice the March 11, 2019 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Discharge Order, attached as Exhibit D, and an August 13, 2020 Order granting relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay, attached as Exhibit E. No such documents are attached to the request for judicial notice , but they are attached to the Declaration of Edye A. Hill. The Court takes judicial notice of these records of a federal court. IV.
REBECCA LIM VS ANGELICA VALDEZ
BC652488
Feb 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
