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

76-100 of 185 results

MARSHA ARMSTRONG, M.D. V. ANTHONY TREPEL, ET AL.

The continuing arguments that the state court judgment could have somehow been collaterally attacked in the federal bankruptcy proceeding or that it would have been possible in bankruptcy to discharge a fraudulent transfer judgment fail as a matter of law. Mr. Feldman’s continuing arguments that Trepel is to blame for alleged malpractice by other attorneys also could not raise any triable issues of material fact even if they could be considered.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

GUILLERMINA GARCIA-BARRERA, ET AL. V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL.

When Siegel filed for bankruptcy, Freddie Mac filed proofs of claim to which Siegel did not object, and the bankruptcy court allowed Freddie Mac to foreclose. (Ibid.) While his bankruptcy proceeding was ongoing, Siegel sued Freddie Mac in state court, arguing that Freddie Mac should not be able to proceed against him because it had violated its duties under the loan agreements. (Id. at pp. 528-529.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2018

TRIPLE NINE PLUS FINE LAND AND MINING COMPANY LLC, VS CHILDS (THE 2009 ACTION)

Moving parties also argue that the order bars the complaint as to them because it states that they “shall not have any personal liability for any judgment in the State Court Action [this action] . . .” Exhibit A at 4:1-14. However, the second cause of action does not seek to subject moving parties to personal liability. In ruling on a demurrer, the court is limited to the allegations of the complaint and documents of which is may take judicial notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2018

TRIPLE NINE PLUS FINE LAND AND MINING COMPANY LLC VS. TUCKER

A state court’s jurisdiction in a matter that has been removed to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446 and 1447. 28 U.S.C. § 1446 directs that once a matter has been removed, the “State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.” Section 1447 states, in part: “A certified copy of the order of remand shall be mailed by the clerk to the clerk of the State court. The State court may thereupon proceed with such case.”

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2018

DIABETES RESEARCH RESTITUTION VS. KATZ

Thus, the Bankruptcy Code provides a remedy for Plaintiff's alleged conduct – recovery by the trustee. As such, the Bankruptcy Code preempts any adjudication of these issues by this court. The court is not persuaded by Defendants' arguments that bankruptcy preemption applies only to the assertion of affirmative claims and not to defenses. Cases, including Choy, include language prohibiting the "litigation" of bankruptcy court issues in state court.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DIABETES RESEARCH RESTITUTION VS. KATZ

Thus, the Bankruptcy Code provides a remedy for Plaintiff's alleged conduct – recovery by the trustee. As such, the Bankruptcy Code preempts any adjudication of these issues by this court. The court is not persuaded by Defendants' arguments that bankruptcy preemption applies only to the assertion of affirmative claims and not to defenses. Cases, including Choy, include language prohibiting the "litigation" of bankruptcy court issues in state court.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SOULLIERE VS. SUZUKI MOTOR AMERICA, INC.

In this case, the bankruptcy court did apparently make express findings which were not made in Savage. So Savage does not stand for the proposition that a state court may ignore a federal bankruptcy court’s express findings. Once again, Plaintiff’s remedy, if he seeks to challenge the bankruptcy court’s findings, would be in federal court, not state court.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2018

SOULLIERE VS. SUZUKI MOTOR AMERICA, INC.

In this case, the bankruptcy court did apparently make express findings which were not made in Savage. So Savage does not stand for the proposition that a state court may ignore a federal bankruptcy court’s express findings. Once again, Plaintiff’s remedy, if he seeks to challenge the bankruptcy court’s findings, would be in federal court, not state court.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2018

SOULLIERE VS. SUZUKI MOTOR AMERICA, INC.

In this case, the bankruptcy court did apparently make express findings which were not made in Savage. So Savage does not stand for the proposition that a state court may ignore a federal bankruptcy court’s express findings. Once again, Plaintiff’s remedy, if he seeks to challenge the bankruptcy court’s findings, would be in federal court, not state court.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2018

KAPLAN VS. SETERUS

In August 2017 the federal court granted summary judgment against plaintiff’s federal claim, and remanded the CCRAA claim back to state court. The parties do not inform the Court what happened thereafter to the small-claims case. The present limited-jurisdiction case, however, was filed in December 2017. 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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2018

PLAMEX INVESTMENT, LLC VS. STEVE KIM

The automatic stay is core bankruptcy proceeding and a State court modifying that stay “would constitute unauthorized infringement upon the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction to enforce the stay.” (In re Gruntz (2000) 202 F. 3d 1074, 1082.) It appears that any action by this Court on the matters before it would interfere with the rights of the parties currently before the Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Court has a hearing on this matter set for June 13, 2018. III.

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2018

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FOX VS. FORSTER

Plaintiff Patricia Fox obtained a judgment against Defendant Gardner Forster III in Alaska state court. The default judgment was based on a car accident in 1983 where Defendant, who was later charged with driving while intoxicated, hit Plaintiff’s car and seriously injured her. Plaintiff received a default judgment against Defendant in 1987 for $445,557. The current value of this judgment (with Alaska’s 10.5% interest rate) is $1,868,991.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2018

JOSE L RAMIREZ VS JP MORGAN CHASE BANK ET AL

Discussion Defendants contend that this Court has the authority to decide the motion for judgment on the pleadings despite the pending bankruptcy on two grounds: 1) this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Bankruptcy Court over Ramirez’s claims, and 2) the automatic stay does not preclude a defensive action commenced by a debtor in state court. The Court finds Defendants’ argument well-taken.

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

HANK MINARDO V. R&S LANDSCAPE INC.

The Agreement identifies the bankruptcy proceeding, this action for recovery of a debt (identified as the “State Court Judgment”), and that if Defendant defaulted on any one of the payments under the Agreement, Plaintiff could attempt to collect on the State Court Judgment (i.e., the Default Judgment). (3) Defendant contends the acceleration clause was not triggered because, in his original email to Defendant requesting the overdue payment, Plaintiff failed to advise Defendant he had 30 days to cure.

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2018

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

    Apr 18, 2018

TRIPLE NINE PLUS FINE LAND AND MINING CO., LLC VS TUCKER

As Petitioners argue, the bankruptcy court did not send a certified copy of the remand order, to this Court until later, on or about 2/5/2018. The present was a removed-state court action that was with the bankruptcy court and under stay, therefore, jurisdiction by this court to dismiss it before the remand occurred, may not have existed. See 28 USC §1447(c); Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California (9th Cir. 1988) 837 F.2d 413, 414; Spanair S.A. v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2018

JOSE J. MEJIA VS. ROUSSOS CONSTRUCTION INC.

Whether the Bankruptcy Court should grant injunctive relief under its equitable powers under 11 U.S.C. §105. 3. Plaintiffs' request for relief from the automatic stay so that their claims, including the PAGA claims against Nino, should be litigated in state court or before the Bankruptcy Court. 4. Whether the bankruptcy trustee will allow Nino's claims pursuant to his cross-complaint to be litigated in state court or before the Bankruptcy Court.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOSE J. MEJIA VS. ROUSSOS CONSTRUCTION INC.

Whether the Bankruptcy Court should grant injunctive relief under its equitable powers under 11 U.S.C. §105. 3. Plaintiffs' request for relief from the automatic stay so that their claims, including the PAGA claims against Nino, should be litigated in state court or before the Bankruptcy Court. 4. Whether the bankruptcy trustee will allow Nino's claims pursuant to his cross-complaint to be litigated in state court or before the Bankruptcy Court.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

IVAN RENE MOORE VS KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG

However, a state court does not have concurrent jurisdiction to determine the scope and applicability of a stay with respect to a core bankruptcy proceeding. (In re Marriage of Sprague & Spiegel-Sprague (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.) Further, because the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over objections to discharge, state court judgments construing the scope of the bankruptcy discharge are not preclusive. (In re Pavelich (9th Cir. BAP 1999) 222 BR 777, 783.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOHNSON, ELAN VS GRAND AVENUE IMAGING INC.

However, a state court does not have concurrent jurisdiction to determine the scope and applicability of a stay with respect to a core bankruptcy proceeding. (In re Marriage of Sprague & Spiegel-Sprague (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.) Further, because the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over objections to discharge, state court judgments construing the scope of the bankruptcy discharge are not preclusive. (In re Pavelich (9th Cir. BAP 1999) 222 BR 777, 783.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOHNSON, ELAN VS GRAND AVENUE IMAGING INC.

However, a state court does not have concurrent jurisdiction to determine the scope and applicability of a stay with respect to a core bankruptcy proceeding. (In re Marriage of Sprague & Spiegel-Sprague (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.) Further, because the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over objections to discharge, state court judgments construing the scope of the bankruptcy discharge are not preclusive. (In re Pavelich (9th Cir. BAP 1999) 222 BR 777, 783.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOHNSON, ELAN VS GRAND AVENUE IMAGING INC.

However, a state court does not have concurrent jurisdiction to determine the scope and applicability of a stay with respect to a core bankruptcy proceeding. (In re Marriage of Sprague & Spiegel-Sprague (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.) Further, because the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over objections to discharge, state court judgments construing the scope of the bankruptcy discharge are not preclusive. (In re Pavelich (9th Cir. BAP 1999) 222 BR 777, 783.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOHNSON, ELAN VS GRAND AVENUE IMAGING INC.

However, a state court does not have concurrent jurisdiction to determine the scope and applicability of a stay with respect to a core bankruptcy proceeding. (In re Marriage of Sprague & Spiegel-Sprague (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.) Further, because the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over objections to discharge, state court judgments construing the scope of the bankruptcy discharge are not preclusive. (In re Pavelich (9th Cir. BAP 1999) 222 BR 777, 783.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRYAN JAMES VS. BRYAN CRAIG

The state court should have given effect to the bankruptcy court's orders. By going further, the state court exceeded its jurisdiction, even if the state court believed that Rutz had valid grounds to object to the orders.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

    Feb 15, 2018

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  « 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.