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

CAROLYN DAVIS V. U.S. BANK, N.A., ET AL

“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.) “Even if the foreclosure had violated the stay, appellants would have been required to raise that claim in the bankruptcy court…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.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2019

IRIS MANUEL VS. VARDOUI MADATIAN, ET AL

The Bankruptcy Court stated: “So it appears to me that the state court is trying to respect the automatic stay and the court’s jurisdiction. I appreciate that very much and believe, you know, we try to—the two courts try to get along and I do appreciate it. But by granting this motion for relief from the automatic stay I am saying to the state court judge, the state court whichever judge is presiding, you may do whatever you think you should do or not do with respect to the judgment.” [Ex.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2019

FSP-SOUTH FLOWER STREET LLC VS MORGAN STANLEY PRIVATE BANK N

Shutleff, Inc.), (9th Cir. 1985) 778 F.2d 1416, 1419 (“No state court decree imposing a [constructive] trust exists in the present case; thus appellants’ entitlement to such a remedy is inchoate, at best.”). “[W]here a constructive trust has only been requested by [plaintiff] and has not even been imposed by a state court, a claim of constructive trust may not represent as firm an interest in property as a resulting trust.”) (emphasis in original).

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CHAPMAN VS BOND

But Bond points to no authority suggesting it would be appropriate to exercise that power as to matters over which a sister-state court expressly reserved jurisdiction. And here, the Oregon court conducted a full trial as well extensive work on post-judgment findings of fact and other orders. So it has the far superior expertise to adjudicate wind-up disputes anyway.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2019

GILMAN, KEVAN H. VS. SWEENY, MIKE, ET AL

A judgment creditor is entitled to request an award of fees and costs in state court for efforts exerted in bankruptcy proceedings. (See, e.g., Jaffe v. Pacelli (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 927, 937- 938.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

  • Judge

    MICHAEL A. JACQUES

  • County

    Placer County, CA

JACLYN PRECIADO TRUSTEE OF THE MARAZITI FAMILY EST 11/19/2011 VS. WILMINGTON TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

The defendant in Semtek argued that because the federal judgment of dismissal was "on the merits," that rule 41(b) controlled and the federal court dismissal had a claim preclusion effect in Maryland state court in which the new action was pending.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JACLYN PRECIADO TRUSTEE OF THE MARAZITI FAMILY EST 11/19/2011 VS. WILMINGTON TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

The defendant in Semtek argued that because the federal judgment of dismissal was "on the merits," that rule 41(b) controlled and the federal court dismissal had a claim preclusion effect in Maryland state court in which the new action was pending.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BEHNAZ MOHAMAD BEIGI, ET AL. V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.

Iqbal (2009) 556 U.S. 662, its decision has no precedential value as that standard does not ordinarily apply in state court. (See generally Bach v. County of Butte (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 554, 561–62.) Lender, thus, does not substantiate its argument. Lender also argues Plaintiffs lack standing to assert a UCL claim. Standing is an essential prerequisite for asserting a UCL claim. (Hansen v. Newegg.com Americas, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 714, 723, citing Kwikset Corp. v. Super.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

REYES V. BARNELL

Here, plaintiffs have made a strategic decision to file actions in both state court and federal court regarding the same underlying facts, and involving some of the same claims. However, the pendency of the appeal in the bankruptcy action does not automatically stay the state court action, nor would it serve the interests of judicial efficiency to stay the present case until the bankruptcy appeal is resolved.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2018

MICHAEL SINGER, ET AL., VS G.H. COOPER PROPERTIES, INC.

Request for Judicial Notice Defendant requests judicial notice of the pleadings and documents filed in the instant action, as well as pleadings and documents in the ongoing United States Bankruptcy Court Case In re G.H. Cooper Properties, Inc., Debtor. Judicial notice is therefore GRANTED pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code §452(d), which requires judicial notice upon motion of federal or state court records.

  • Hearing

    Nov 27, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STEPHENSON VS. ERTL, ET AL.

On May 21, 2018, the parties were ordered to file Status Reports advising the Court as to the status of the bankruptcy stay. No Status Reports have been received. The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a document entitled Notice to State Court of Removal of Action by Defendants, informing the Court that on June 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Removal of this action to the United States Bankruptcy Court.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2018

SUN MAITA, INC. VS MAITA

Elba Oil Co. (1942) 21 Cal.2d 188, 205 (“Our state courts give full faith and credit to the final judgments and orders of the United States District Courts” which “establish… the conclusiveness of the bankruptcy proceedings … in this state court action”); People v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2018

LEGAL RECOVERY, LLC V. GOLDEN STATE LUMBAR, INC.

Yan filed for bankruptcy and the bankruptcy court refused to pierce the corporate veil of San Francisco Building Professionals Inc. Mr. Yan sued Defendant’s predecessor and its attorney in state court, but judgment was entered against Mr. Yan in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion. (SeeCoopersmith Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. 6.) Following a suspension in 2013, Mr. Yan was disbarred effective March 16, 2018. (SeeCoopersmith Decl. ¶ 9.) The 54 page order disbarring Mr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2018

SUN MAITA, INC. VS MAITA

Elba Oil Co. (1942) 21 Cal.2d 188, 205 (“Our state courts give full faith and credit to the final judgments and orders of the United States District Courts” which “establish… the conclusiveness of the bankruptcy proceedings … in this state court action”); People v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2018

CAROLYN DAVIS V. U.S. BANKS, NA, ET AL

“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.) “Even if the foreclosure had violated the stay, appellants would have been required to raise that claim in the bankruptcy court…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.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2018

CURVATURE LLC, ET AL. V. PIVIT GLOBAL, INC., ET AL.

Nevertheless, Curvature initiated judicial proceedings—first in federal court, and then in state court—without reference to the arbitration requirement and in breach of the terms of the arbitration agreement.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2018

JASBIR SINGH VS STEPHANIE CHING-YEE CHAN ET AL

Both the automobile and its title as well as the initial payment specified in 2.2 (a) above, shall remain in the custody and control of counsel for Plaintiffs [Molnar] until the expiration of fifteen (15) days from the date of the Chapter 7 Trustee, Alberta Stahl, executes a Notice of Abandonment of Defendants’ state court claims in the State Court Proceeding and the executed Notice of Abandonment is served and provided that there are no objections thereto.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2018

PADILLA V. WECOSIGN, INC.

As such, Carlos Padilla III can prosecute the underlying State Court Action in its entirety, provided all claims are related to non-dischargeable subject matter. Upon entry of judgment by the Orange County Superior Court, Carlos Padilla III shall seek (if appropriate) nondischargeability of the state court judgment before this Court.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2018

JORDANA BAUMAN VS WELLS FARGO BANK NA

Plaintiff voluntarily filed for bankruptcy multiple times. Plaintiff could have instituted this action in state court prior to filing for bankruptcy. Each of the alleged wrongs asserted by Plaintiff in her complaint occurred in or before 2013. Each of the applicable statute of limitation periods is four years or less. Plaintiff did not file this action until June 12, 2018. Plaintiff has not provided any authority or evidence to indicate the statute of limitations were tolled at any time.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JORDANA BAUMAN VS WELLS FARGO BANK NA

Plaintiff voluntarily filed for bankruptcy multiple times. Plaintiff could have instituted this action in state court prior to filing for bankruptcy. Each of the alleged wrongs asserted by Plaintiff in her complaint occurred in or before 2013. Each of the applicable statute of limitation periods is four years or less. Plaintiff did not file this action until June 12, 2018. Plaintiff has not provided any authority or evidence to indicate the statute of limitations were tolled at any time.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JORDANA BAUMAN VS WELLS FARGO BANK NA

Plaintiff voluntarily filed for bankruptcy multiple times. Plaintiff could have instituted this action in state court prior to filing for bankruptcy. Each of the alleged wrongs asserted by Plaintiff in her complaint occurred in or before 2013. Each of the applicable statute of limitation periods is four years or less. Plaintiff did not file this action until June 12, 2018. Plaintiff has not provided any authority or evidence to indicate the statute of limitations were tolled at any time.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RUDY A. DIAZ VS. GOAL LINE PROPERTIES, LLC

Eighteenth Cause of Action – Jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court “The bankruptcy court ha[s] jurisdiction over all claims alleging willful violation of [an] automatic stay. [citation omitted.] The existence of a federal remedy for violation of the stay must be read as an implicit rejection of state court remedies. [citation omitted.]” (Abdallah v. United Savings Bank (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1109.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2018

CEASER DIAZ VS. CONTINENTAL BUSINESS CREDIT

There is a lawsuit pending in state court in Los Angeles that appears to have been brought by Continental against Sabemos – and possibly the other Beverage Defendants. (ROA 56, Scharringhausen Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff and Continental entered into the Settlement and Release that is the subject of the present motion on June 21, 2018. It provides that Continental will pay Plaintiff $7,000.00.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

VELA-CRUZ V. AG TRANSPORTS, INC.

Settlement Administrator The Court can find only three cases in any federal and state court system that approved the use of the specified settlement administrator, Atticus Administration, all in the past nine months. The Court need know why this company was chosen, whether bids were received from other companies, and the record need contain a declaration from a principal of the company as to its history and qualifications.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ROBERT PALMER VS BRENDA PHILLIPS ET AL

Palmer argues that Phillips’ voluntary dismissal of the Underlying Action is a favorable termination on the merits because at the time of dismissal, he had successfully had the Underlying Action remanded from bankruptcy court to state court and had informed counsel for Phillips (the LH Defendants, presumably) that he was going to appear ex parte for leave of court to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Palmer Decl., ¶ 61.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2018

  « first    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.