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

101-125 of 185 results

ERIC B GANS VS CAROLINE HEPBURN-O'BRIEN

This issue is distinct from whether the bankruptcy court can stay state court proceedings in its discretion.” (Id. at p. 336.) “It is clear that § 362 does not stay the hand of the trustee from continuing to prosecute a pre-bankruptcy lawsuit instituted by the debtor.” (Id. at p. 337.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2018

ASCENTIUM CAPITAL LLC VS AYANNA WALDEN MD INC

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Ascentium dismissed the district court action without prejudice so the new state court action could be filed against Walden, and the stipulation of entry of judgment entered if Walden defaulted. Noon Decl. ¶14. The reason a new state court action was filed is that most federal courts will not hold a case open for years while payments are being made and instead will dismiss the complaint. Alper Decl. ¶8.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2018

KOSI VS. LITTMAN

This declaratory relief action shall be limited to the following two issues: (1) the enforceability of the disputed $ 31,800 late penalty, and; (2) in light of the Court’s ruling on the first issue, the dollar amounts that should be disbursed to the three interested parties from the sale proceeds currently held by the Bankruptcy Court. All parties agree that the Bankruptcy Court has delegated such a ruling to an appropriate state court of competent jurisdiction.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2018

MASSIMO MILLAURO VS SPORT CHALET INC

Plaintiff further argues that he can “seek a state court judgment for willful misconduct and enforce it outside the scope of insurance proceeds once the automatic stay is lifted when the bankruptcy case is closed.” (Opposition, p. 5:8-10.) This is a misreading of the Bankruptcy Order.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2018

CATHAY BANK VS ERGOCRAFT CONTRACT SOLUTIONS

Ergocraft, moreover, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on 11/8/17. (Id. at Par. 51, Exhibit “25”). On 12/7/17, Bank filed a stipulation to grant Bank relief from the bankruptcy automatic stay, wherein the parties acknowledged and agreed that Bank was not adequately protected, there is no equity in the collateral for the bankruptcy estate and that the collateral is not necessary for an effective reorganization of the estate. (Id. at Par. 57, Exhibit “26”).

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2018

PETER WONG VS. DAVID KWOK, ET AL.

A state court does not have concurrent jurisdiction to determine the scope and applicability of the automatic stay with respect to a core bankruptcy proceeding. Bankruptcy courts have the sole authority to determine the scope of the automatic stay imposed by 11 United States Code section 362(a), subject to federal appellate review. In re Marriage of Sprague & Spiegel-Sprague (2003) 105 Cal. App. 4th 215, 219.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2018

HARRY M FOX VS JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N A ET AL

And in the second failed removal the federal court expressly declined to accept jurisdiction and remanded the action to state court. Again, no decision was made by the federal court as to the merits of any claim or issue. In the Court’s discretion it declines to award costs for the failed federal removal. See CCP § 1033.5(c)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs in Items 1(a) and 1(e) for the federal removal costs is GRANTED. 2.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2017

MOREIRA VS DITECH FINANCIAL LLC

The automatic stay does not preclude the state court from ruling on the demurrer. However, the bankruptcy filing does raise the question of whether plaintiffs own the claims they seek to assert. Under 11 USC §541(a)(1), "[t]he commencement of a case [under the Bankruptcy Code] creates an estate . . . comprised of all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case."

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MOREIRA VS DITECH FINANCIAL LLC

The automatic stay does not preclude the state court from ruling on the demurrer. However, the bankruptcy filing does raise the question of whether plaintiffs own the claims they seek to assert. Under 11 USC §541(a)(1), "[t]he commencement of a case [under the Bankruptcy Code] creates an estate . . . comprised of all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case."

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MCCAULEY VS. LOCKETT

A state court can neither invalidate such an order, nor amend it, nor ignore it. Thus, plaintiff will have to turn to the bankruptcy court or district court for relief from the discharge order. This Court does not direct what the proper procedure might be for plaintiff to seek such relief; indeed, the Court assumes that such a procedure is available, but does not pretend to know that for sure. It will be up to plaintiff to figure out how he may pursue this in the federal arena.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2017

ST. MARK VS. SAINT MARK

A bankruptcy case involving one defendant creates an automatic stay of state-court proceedings against that defendant. There is no stay, however, prohibiting a plaintiff from continuing to prosecute a state-court case against other, non-bankrupt defendants. Plaintiff does not assert that its inability to litigate in this Court against New Bethel made it impracticable or impossible to continue to pursue this case against St. Mark at Bethel or anyone else. Removal, however, is a different matter.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2017

GOMEZ VS. SIVERLAKE

On the other hand, if the broader federal fraud action is allowed to proceed to judgment first, it may well resolve the issues Caiafa seeks to decide through a section 2860 arbitration in the state court. In that instance, the section 2860 arbitration would be entirely unnecessary. ‘Unseemly conflict’ will have been avoided and the interest in judicial economy well served.” Id., at 807. Further, in Farmland Irrigation Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2017

IN RE 323 SOUTH AVENUE 20 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90031

(Id. at p. 4, ¶ 5); and “Upon payment of the Settlement Sum in full, the Judgment Creditors shall file a full satisfaction of judgment as to all parties to the Judgment in the State Court Lawsuit.” (Id. at p. 4, ¶ 6). In return, Montejano agreed to “waive[] any right to exempt or claim an exemption in any portion of the Settlement Sum, any funds now held by the Trustee, the Properties, or the proceeds from the sale of any of the Properties.” (Settlement Agreement at ¶ 13.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2017

USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA INC. VS CITY OF IRWINDALE

Plaintiff contends that it recently learned, though, that CTA’s offer to purchase the bankruptcy estate expired. Also, plaintiff alleges that it has learned that CTA, through its counsel at Bryan Cave LLP, has approached Dispatch’s trustee and offered to pay for the legal services of Bryan Cave, LLP if the trustee is willing to retain Bryan Cave, LLP as special counsel in both the state court and bankruptcy proceedings. It is plaintiff’s understanding that the trustee has not accepted that offer.

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2017

MICHAEL HAMMER, ET AL. V. ALEXANDER MERTENS

“Discharge in bankruptcy of a cause of action asserted in state court litigation is a defense.” (Flores v. Kmart Corp. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1316, 1324.) If it is unclear from the documents presented by judicial notice whether a discharge order is enforceable against the plaintiff, the demurrer must be overruled. (Id. at pp. 1324-1325.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2017

JUDY GOOLER VS US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL

It should also be noted that the federal bankruptcy court has, since the filing of this motion, on September 18, 2017, evidently denied a motion by Gooler to clarify the effect of the discharge order, stating, “This court agrees with state court that the facts that debtor contends make the post-petition foreclosure wrongful occurred prior to the debtor’s bankruptcy.” [Notice of Entry of Order, Attach. p. 2].

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MONICA HUJAZI, AN INDIVIDUIAL AND TRUSTEE OF THE VS. SYDNEY A. LUSCUTOFF ET AL

However moving papers indicate plaintiff has filed bankruptcy, which is ongoing. The moving party shall explain how during active bankruptcy proceedings entry of an Order in the state court action compelling discovery is permitted. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2017

MONICA HUJAZI, AN INDIVIDUIAL AND TRUSTEE OF THE VS. SYDNEY A. LUSCUTOFF ET AL

However moving papers indicate plaintiff has filed bankruptcy, which is ongoing. The moving party shall explain how during active bankruptcy proceedings entry of an Order in the state court action compelling discovery is permitted. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2017

MARISA NELSON VS ROBERT M BERNSTEIN ET AL

According to Plaintiff, if Defendants had timely raised that argument and if the bankruptcy court had agreed, then Plaintiff would have been free to file an action against Defendants in state court within the statute of limitations. Plaintiff argues that Defendants should therefore be equitably estopped from asserting her personal ownership of these claims, here.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2017

ERNESTO ESPINOZA VS. SERGIO PRASLIN

“The existence of federal sanctions for the filing of frivolous and malicious bankruptcy pleadings must be read as an implicit rejection of state court remedies. The mere possibility of being sued in tort in state court, with the potential for substantial damage awards, could deter persons from exercising their rights in bankruptcy. Thus, it is for Congress and the federal courts, not state courts, to decide what incentives and penalties shall be utilized in the bankruptcy process. [Citations Omitted.]”

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IN RE THE RACHEAL MOFYA DISTRIBUTION TRUST DATED OCTOBER 28, 2011

At issue here is the effect of the settlement, approved by the Bankruptcy Court, between Petitioners and the BR trustee on the Petitioners bankruptcy claim (based on the Order for Writ of Attachment) against Respondent McQueen in the pending state court action, the Ventura Action The Court concludes there is no res judicata effect precluding Respondent's pending motion for summary judgment. 1.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2017

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

IN RE THE RACHEAL MOFYA DISTRIBUTION TRUST DATED OCTOBER 28, 2011

At issue here is the effect of the settlement, approved by the Bankruptcy Court, between Petitioners and the BR trustee on the Petitioners bankruptcy claim (based on the Order for Writ of Attachment) against Respondent McQueen in the pending state court action, the Ventura Action The Court concludes there is no res judicata effect precluding Respondent's pending motion for summary judgment. 1.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2017

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

IN RE THE RACHEAL MOFYA DISTRIBUTION TRUST DATED OCTOBER 28, 2011

At issue here is the effect of the settlement, approved by the Bankruptcy Court, between Petitioners and the BR trustee on the Petitioners bankruptcy claim (based on the Order for Writ of Attachment) against Respondent McQueen in the pending state court action, the Ventura Action The Court concludes there is no res judicata effect precluding Respondent's pending motion for summary judgment. 1.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2017

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

ERIC GREENSPAN VS NATIONASTAR MORTGAGE LLC

Interestingly, although the Deed of Trust is a standardized California form, Nationstar has not provided this Court with a citation to even a single California state court case which interprets the obscure provision as providing for an award of attorneys’ fees to a defendant in any action related to a Deed of Trust, much less one that was based upon alleged violations of the Homeowner Bill of Rights, as plaintiff’s case was.

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2017

WICKMAN V. THE JACKSON’S ESTATE

The state court complaint was dismissed on or about November 12, 1987, due to the constant harassment of individuals directly associated with the “infamy” of Plaintiff’s name change which followed Plaintiff everywhere she traveled.

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

  « 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.