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

126-150 of 185 results

AFFILIATED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES V. VAN DYKE

Carnation Co. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 161, 263 Cal.Rptr. 476, appellant debtor contended the automatic stay applied to his state court cause of action, suspended the superior court's jurisdiction over the case and tolled time under the five-year mandatory dismissal statute. (Code Civ.Proc., § 583.310.) This court held to the contrary. "[The] action was not stayed during the bankruptcy.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2017

HAROLD NAGAN VS. PATRICK RILEY

Given that this is a procedural issue governed by state statute and binding state-court precedent, the authorities cited by Weiss provide little help to the analysis of this issue. Riley argues that the second amended cross-complaint includes compulsory cross- claims because they are all related causes of action. Weiss makes no argument to the contrary.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2017

  • Judge Ed Weil
  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MARQUES VS JP MORGAN CHASE BANK. N.A.

On 08/29/16, plaintiffs filed the present state court civil action. On 09/12/16, Quality Loan Service – on behalf of Chase – conducted a non-judicial foreclosure sale of the subject Dana Point property. The arrears had amassed to nearly $1.2 million.

  • Hearing

    May 05, 2017

BEASLEY VS. ORIGINAL MIKE'S

In that case, “[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 appellate court distinguished between two types of alter ego liability claims, one that is subject to a bankruptcy stay and another that is not.

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2017

KIRBY & MCGUINN APC VS. CONNOISSEUR ADVISORS INC

The bankruptcy court reviewed the motion because of the possible "effect upon the debtor of a state court judgment against Gardner [the guarantor]." In discussing the issue, the court first dismissed as inapplicable to the facts of this case the situation where the third-party defendant was "independently liable as, for example, where the debtor and another are joint tort feasors or where the nondebtor's liability rests upon his own breach of duty."

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KIRBY & MCGUINN APC VS. CONNOISSEUR ADVISORS INC

The bankruptcy court reviewed the motion because of the possible "effect upon the debtor of a state court judgment against Gardner [the guarantor]." In discussing the issue, the court first dismissed as inapplicable to the facts of this case the situation where the third-party defendant was "independently liable as, for example, where the debtor and another are joint tort feasors or where the nondebtor's liability rests upon his own breach of duty."

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KIRBY & MCGUINN APC VS. CONNOISSEUR ADVISORS INC

The bankruptcy court reviewed the motion because of the possible "effect upon the debtor of a state court judgment against Gardner [the guarantor]." In discussing the issue, the court first dismissed as inapplicable to the facts of this case the situation where the third-party defendant was "independently liable as, for example, where the debtor and another are joint tort feasors or where the nondebtor's liability rests upon his own breach of duty."

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOUGLAS SQUARE, LLC VS. ABDIAS CARRENO

The time has expired for seeking relief in state court from the judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 473. Any relief from Plaintiff's collection of a discharged debt must be sought from the federal bankruptcy court.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC VS. ABDIAS CARRENO

The time has expired for seeking relief in state court from the judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 473. Any relief from Plaintiff's collection of a discharged debt must be sought from the federal bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court must make the determination of whether the judgment lien created by the abstract of judgment recorded in November 2009 remains valid.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2017

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

MILLER VS. JONKMAN

The court is awarding what it considers to be reasonable attorneys’ fees for both the state court litigation and the bankruptcy litigation, taking into account the fact that some of the work done by plaintiff’s counsel was also done on behalf of Lona Gray. Moving party is ordered to give notice unless notice is waived.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2017

JW MITCHELL INC VS QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION

Jurisdiction of Bankruptcy Court State court jurisdiction is not proper to accomplish the adjustment of rights and duties within the bankruptcy process itself, which should be uniquely and exclusively federal (e.g., debtors' petitions, creditors' claims, disputes over reorganization plans, disputes over discharge, and such other proceedings). Satten v. Webb (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 365, 384. "...

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JW MITCHELL INC VS QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION

Jurisdiction of Bankruptcy Court State court jurisdiction is not proper to accomplish the adjustment of rights and duties within the bankruptcy process itself, which should be uniquely and exclusively federal (e.g., debtors' petitions, creditors' claims, disputes over reorganization plans, disputes over discharge, and such other proceedings). Satten v. Webb (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 365, 384. "...

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

PADILLA V. WECOSIGN, INC.

This is an issue for the bankruptcy court to decide, not this state court. At present, the enforceability/dischargability of the WeCosign judgments is an open issue. According to the memoranda on file, the issue is presently before the bankruptcy court, with no decision having yet been made. If the debts are dischargeable, they will be resolved in whole within the bankruptcy proceeding (and plaintiff’s adversary claims).

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2017

JW MITCHELL INC VS QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION

Jurisdiction of Bankruptcy Court State court jurisdiction is not proper to accomplish the adjustment of rights and duties within the bankruptcy process itself, which should be uniquely and exclusively federal (e.g., debtors' petitions, creditors' claims, disputes over reorganization plans, disputes over discharge, and such other proceedings). Satten v. Webb (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 365, 384. "...

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ASHLEY VS. STONGER

Kmart Corp. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1316, 1324 (“Discharge in bankruptcy of a cause of action asserted in state court litigation is a defense”); Mueller v. Elba Oil Co. (1942) 21 Cal.2d 188, 191; Williams v. Winter (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 474, 475. To obtain an order disposing of a complaint, or cause of action, the Defendant can demur to the pleading, or bring a motion for summary adjudication. See Flores v. Kmart Corp. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1316, 1324; CCP § 437c(o)(1).

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2017

MARQUES V. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

On 08/29/16, plaintiffs filed the present state court civil action. On 09/12/16, Quality Loan Service – on behalf of Chase – conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure sale of the subject Dana Point property. The arrears had amassed to nearly $1.2 million.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2017

THOMAS SCHULTHEIS ET AL VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC ET AL

of California, Case No. 9:09-bk-14964-PC, (8) Order Confirming Second Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Case No. 9:09-bk-14964-PC, (9) Order Granting Demurrer with Leave to Amend filed on October 12, 2016, in the State Court of California, County of Santa Barbara Case No. 16CV00160.

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2017

JUDY GOOLER VS US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL

The doctrine of judicial estoppel has been applied to find that a plaintiff who failed to disclose in bankruptcy schedules a potential civil claim for damages is barred from later bringing such a claim in state court. See Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602. The bankruptcy code and rules require bankruptcy debtors to disclose all assets, including contingent and unliquidated claims.

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ASHLEY VS. STONGER -

Kmart Corp. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1316, 1324 (“Discharge in bankruptcy of a cause of action asserted in state court litigation is a defense”); Mueller v. Elba Oil Co. (1942) 21 Cal.2d 188, 191; Williams v. Winter (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 474, 475. To obtain an order disposing of a complaint or cause of action based on an affirmative defense, the Defendant can demur to the complaint, or bring a motion for summary adjudication of his defense. See Flores v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2017

VANESSA WHITE VS WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ET AL

White on July 6, 2016; 6) the opposition to the motion to vacate, filed on July 11, 2016; 7) the supplemental declarations re: newly discovered facts and fraud in opposition to the motion to vacate, filed on July 12, 2016; 8) the minute order and order to evict, dated July 13, 2016; 9) the order remanding the unlawful detainer case to state court, issued by the U.S.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2017

PARADIGM OIL, INC. , ET AL. V. BAKERHOSTETLER, ET AL.

(“Paradigm/Pacific plaintiffs”) in an oil and gas case in Texas state court (Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Paradigm Oil Co., et al.). [FAC ¶45] As a result of misconduct by defendant Ivey, a default judgment was taken against Paradigm as a discovery sanction. [FAC ¶¶133, 154] The plaintiff in the Retamco case pursued judgment actions and discovery in execution of judgment against Paradigm, its owners and its subsidiaries nationwide.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2016

MARISA NELSON VS ROBERT M BERNSTEIN ET AL

. § 1367 she had 30 days to file this action in state court from the date the bankruptcy case was voluntarily dismissed on March 23, 2016. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 14.) Since she filed this action on April 22, 2016, she maintains the action is timely. The court disagrees that the 30-day period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367 applies to the facts alleged in this complaint.

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2016

ATUL MEHTA VS CRONE HAWXHUST LLP ET AL

Merrick involved Defendants’ motion to dismiss the debtor’s state court action (as opposed to a debtor’s continued prosecution of the case) and Shah involved a Chapter 11 debtor in possession action (as opposed to a Chapter 7 action where the estate is controlled by bankruptcy trustee). Although the trustee abandoned Plaintiff’s case on 11/24/14, Plaintiff was under the mistaken belief that he had to wait for all of the bankruptcy issues to be resolved before he could continue the action.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2016

PADILLA V. WECOSIGN, INC.

Once judgment in the State court action is obtained, however, the court expects that a judgment of this court will be sought before any levies can occur. That is the obvious import of the court’s earlier relief of stay order. These issues have to be litigated somewhere, either in the adversary proceeding or in the State Court Action. So, the debtor’s lament about having to expend funds and time in defending herself is not persuasive. Litigation, unfortunately, appears to be in the cards either way.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2016

Padilla v. Wecosign, Inc. 12-553004

Once judgment in the State court action is obtained, however, the court expects that a judgment of this court will be sought before any levies can occur. That is the obvious import of the court’s earlier relief of stay order. These issues have to be litigated somewhere, either in the adversary proceeding or in the State Court Action. So, the debtor’s lament about having to expend funds and time in defending herself is not persuasive. Litigation, unfortunately, appears to be in the cards either way.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2016

  « 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.