How Does Bankruptcy Affect State Court Litigation?

Useful Rulings on Bankruptcy’s Effect on State Law

Recent Rulings on Bankruptcy’s Effect on State Law

ANDREW M. EGBE VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

The property owner then filed a new action in state court for damages caused by the demolition, and the trial court sustained the city’s demurrer without leave to amend, ruling claim preclusion barred the new action. On appeal, the property owner claimed that claim preclusion did not prevent him from bringing the second action because in the first action he sought to enjoin the demolition of the structure while in the second action he sought compensation for the actual demolition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CAROLINA RAMIREZ, ET AL. V. CLEARWATER NURSERY, INC., ET AL.

Jafroodi to shield these records in the bankruptcy case, which itself was filed to avoid adjudication of Plaintiffs’ Labor Code claims in this state court. Finally, Plaintiffs note that all other protections in the protective orders will remain in place. In light of Plaintiffs’ arguments and the lack of opposition, the motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

CHAPTER ONE LAND TRUST VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

This Court notes that no published opinion in California state court has defined what material means. As such, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that Defendant’s actions were in material violation of the act and plaintiff provides such evidence by noting that Defendant recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale before Plaintiff had completed her application.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

MICHAEL KEITH WILLIAMS VS DRAKE BUCHANAN

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. Griffin v. Allstate Ins. Co., (C.D.Cal. 1996) 920 F. Supp. 127. The trustee controls the bankruptcy estate, therefore, she or he is the real party in interest with standing to sue. Ibid. California state court authority is consistent with federal law.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KRISTIE DOYLE, ET AL. V. IMERYS TALC AMERICA INC., ET AL.

Ultimately, the federal court denied removal and remanded the case back to the state court. On August 9, 2019, trial was scheduled for May 11, 2020. On January 27, 2020, J&J filed a motion for summary judgment set for hearing on April 9, 2020. On February 28, 2020, J&J submitted an ex parte request for a hearing on a motion for forum non conveniens. The Court was unable to accommodate the request for a hearing date prior to trial. The request was denied.

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2020

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT VS ABBOTT, MARISA

However, Defendant Das has not demonstrated how why the statute would apply to her, as she is not a debtor who filed a petition for bankruptcy. In addition, Defendant Das has not supported with legal authority, that the federal statute, asserted by a defendant who did not file a bankruptcy petition herself, is applicable in state court. Thus, Defendant Das’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

However, Defendant Das has not demonstrated how why the statute would apply to her, as she is not a debtor who filed a petition for bankruptcy. In addition, Defendant Das has not supported with legal authority, that the federal statute, asserted by a defendant who did not file a bankruptcy petition herself, is applicable in state court. Thus, Defendant Das’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MYRNA KAWAKITA VS GEORGE TASHJIAN MD ET AL

There, however, debtor’s professional liability insurance carrier became insolvent and was placed in receivership, which was followed by debtor’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy and discharge. Significantly, plaintiffs did not dispute that debtor’s personal liability on any debt arising out of their state court action was discharged in debtor’s bankruptcy case and that they were barred from seeking to collect from debtor personally.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

SCOTT LAMBERT VS PATRICK GOLDBERG MCMAHON, ET AL.

Defendants appear to seek a receiver to shield their interests in the LLC from claims of creditors, and have the receivership function as a state court bankruptcy. The court is not persuaded that appointment of a receiver would or should have that effect. For example, the court would not be inclined to authorize a receiver to sell assets free of liens and encumbrances merely to prefer the LLC member’s interests over those of creditors. Defendants appear to overstate the authority of a receiver.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

JAMALL ROBINSON ET AL. VS GOLF CREEKSIDE LLC ET AL.

Defendants are in bankruptcy proceedings and Plaintiffs have been provided with notice of a stay in state court proceedings. Plaintiffs’ motion is denied. In light of the circumstances, Plaintiffs appear to be misusing the discovery process and may be subject to sanctions. The case management conference scheduled for April 6, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 11B will remain. Ross 2/18/2020

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

AULT CHIROPRACTIC, LLP VS ICRCO, INC

In order for a state court to exercise specific jurisdiction, ‘the suit’ must ‘aris[e] out of or relat[e] to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.’ [Citations.] In other words, there must be ‘an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State’s regulation.’ [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2020

KAREN M. RIKER, ET AL. V. DAVID L. HAGAN

Hagan notes he voluntarily dismissed the Federal Action without prejudice, instead choosing to proceed with the 2017 Action in state court. Mr. Hagan further argues that Judge Fitzgerald’s ruling in the Federal Action “was based on lack of jurisdiction, and did not go to the merits of the case AND it allowed for the complaint to be amended.” (Mtn., p. 10, ll. 25-27, emphasis in original.) Mr. Hagan concludes that “only a judgment of dismissal goes to the merits of the case.” (Id. at l. 27.) Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

WESTFORD RARE COINS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS VADIM POLYAK

Ingber, Plaintiff’s attorney, explains that Defendant Polyak is the principal of Oxbridge Coins, Inc., a debtor in bankruptcy since September 21, 2018. On October 11, 2019, Oxbridge filed an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against Plaintiff and its owner, Michael Johnson. The adversary proceeding alleges that Plaintiff and Johnson fraudulently transferred coins from the bankruptcy estate and wrongfully attempted to exercise control over Oxbridge property by filing the instant state court action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

IVAN RENE MOORE VS KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG

, she filed documents under penalty of perjury that she was holding the property for a third party some of which forms the subject matter of this lawsuit (Id. at ¶ 7); (7) the judge in Defendant’s second bankruptcy signed an order and stated that parties who were claiming an interest in the properties Defendant was holding for third parties could go to state court with their claims (Id. at ¶ 8); (8) Defendant has filed documents with this court stating the claims to the property were discharged (Id.); (9) both

  • Hearing

    Dec 27, 2019

ROBERT VANECH VS CHARLES EBERSOL, ET AL.

Acquisitions, Inc. (5th Cir. 1987) 817 F.2d 1142, and is otherwise expressly prohibited from proceeding in this State Court action by way of the Bankruptcy Court’s Order.” (Id. at p. 12:11-15.) Ebersol argues that the FAC’s allegations that “Mr.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2019

ROBERT VANECH VS CHARLES EBERSOL, ET AL.

Acquisitions, Inc. (5th Cir. 1987) 817 F.2d 1142, and is otherwise expressly prohibited from proceeding in this State Court action by way of the Bankruptcy Court’s Order.” (Id. at p. 12:11-15.) Ebersol argues that the FAC’s allegations that “Mr.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2019

COMPASS BANK V. FAIRFIELD CJD, LP, ET AL.

Are any of the defendants in the TMCC, BMO or Compass bank suits named defendants in the pending Florida bankruptcy suit? 2. Is this state court action stayed as a result of the pending Florida bankruptcy suit involving Momentum Automotive Group? 3. As USRECH is a party to the Florida bankruptcy action in its suit against Momentum Automotive Group, can USRECH appear in this case? And, if USRECH is the beneficiary of a DACA, can USRECH receive monies outside of bankruptcy? 3.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

SHERMAN LEE VS CHARLES HASBUN ET AL

“[A]ccording to the plain language of these statutes, the state court's jurisdiction is suspended when the defendant seeking removal gives notice to the state court clerk, and it is reacquired when the district court clerk gives notice to the state court clerk in the form of a certified copy of the remand order.” (Spanair S.A. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 348, 356.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALEXANDER NIKOLAYCHUK VS CAPITAL ONE N A ET AL

Court Docket as of August 22, 2019 filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Hawaii (Honolulu) Case No. 15-01460, entitled In re: Alexander Nikolaychuk;(6) Order of Discharge filed March 8, 2016, in the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Hawaii (Honolulu) Case No. 15-01460, entitled In re: Alexander Nikolaychuk.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SOCHIL MICHELE VS. IBAGON INC.

First, she contends that the judgment is void because it was entered during the time that state court proceedings were subject to the automatic stay resulting from the filing of defendant's petition for relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).) Second, she asserts that she is entitled to relief based on her excusable neglect or inadvertence. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

CITY OF REDDING VS. SHREE SHIVA, ET AL

Sharma’s activities in the instant litigation in California state court, separate litigation brought by Mr. Sharma in a federal lawsuit, and appellate filings in the appellate court. The statute expressly defines “litigation” to “mean[] any civil action or proceeding, both Mr. Sharma’s activities in the federal lawsuit and the instant case may be considered for purposes of the present motion. The City has established that Mr.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2019

CITY OF REDDING VS. SHREE SHIVA, ET AL

Sharma’s activities in the instant litigation in California state court, separate litigation brought by Mr. Sharma in a federal lawsuit, and appellate filings in the appellate court. The statute expressly defines “litigation” to “mean[] any civil action or proceeding, both Mr. Sharma’s activities in the federal lawsuit and the instant case may be considered for purposes of the present motion. The City has established that Mr.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2019

ROSA MAY VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC

Plaintiff has provided no authority that suggests that MBUSA’s failure to properly remove the District Court case to the Bankruptcy Court would somehow revert jurisdiction back to this Court—somehow skipping the District Court (the court that certainly had jurisdiction over the claim) entirely. Plaintiff points out that the District Court case “was closed.” However, Plaintiff presents no authority that a District Court closing a case grants the State Court jurisdiction.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

LUGLI V. MEDICAL INVESTOR HOLDINGS, LLC ET AL.

But where such a petition is heard in a California state court, it is heard without a jury trial (CCP § 1281.2). The state procedural rule is not preempted because it serves to further, rather than impede, the objectives of arbitration. (Rosenthal, supra, 14 Cal.4th at 410.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2019

ROMEX TEXTILES, INC. VS MOSH COMPANY, INC.

In Shaoxing County, “[a] creditor of a bankrupt corporation sought to recover payment in state court from an individual based on an alter ego theory of liability. The individual argued that the alter ego claim belonged to the bankruptcy estate, because it alleged general injuries to the corporation that could establish a basis of liability for all corporate debts, and therefore, the state court action should be stayed.” (Shaoxing County, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th p. 1193.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.