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

151-175 of 186 results

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

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

MICHAEL FARAJI VS KIMIA ABDOLAZADE

In July of 2015, plaintiff obtained summary judgment against Abdolazade in the state court action, judgment was entered in the amount of $20,500, and no appeal has been filed within the appropriate time. A motion for attorneys’ fees is pending in that action. The complaint also alleges that in October of 2015, Abdolazade filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code and listed defendant Kimia Abdolazade as his legally separated, non-filing spouse.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2016

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Harboldt vs Regan

Judicial notice may be taken of the records of any federal or state court. (Evid. Code, § 452(d).) Item 1 is an order of this court and thus, the proper subject for judicial notice with respect to the judicial orders, findings, conclusions and judgments. There is a split of authority whether a court may take judicial notice of both the existence and truth of facts asserted in court orders, findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgments.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2016

ST.LUKE BAPTIST CHURCH VS BDM LOAN SERVICES INC ET AL

Dobson was considered for special counsel for State Court litigation but certain facts appeared in the monthly operating reports – Ms. Dobson may be a creditor as of the petition date and may have distributed funds to pay her fees, without authorization. If these issues can be “remedied” after investigation then debtor will bring a special application to employ her. Ms. Dobson is not authorized to litigate.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2016

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

RENEE FERESI VS. JAMES G ALLEN

Status of the appeal to the 9th Circuit on the bankruptcy issue. 3. Even if Mr. Allen receives a favorable ruling in the pending appeal of the disgorgement/disallowance of fees issue, has there been a determination made as to whether the bankruptcy court or the state court has jurisdiction to rule on Allen's request for fees. 4. Has a formal order ever been entered staying the state court proceeding pending the outcome of the bankruptcy appeal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2016

ROBERT PHILLIPS ET AL VS XIGG LLC

Plaintiffs argue that the state court action in Oregon is no longer an active case because Phillips got his discharge in bankruptcy. But the motion under CCP § 410.30 is not dependent on that case being active. CCP § 410.30(a) provides that the court may dismiss the action when it “finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state.” That does not require that there be a pending proceeding outside this state.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2016

SHARON WALLACE VS. JO-ANN STORES INC

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." (§ 1447(c), italics added.) The state court is deprived of jurisdiction unless the federal court subsequently remands it. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). See, e.g., Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. D. of Cal. (9th Cir. 1988) 837 F.2d 413, 414). (ROA 136.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOYCE CHABOT VS. JOHN Y CHABOT

On June 3, 2015, beneficiary/litigant John Chabot filed a federal bankruptcy petition, one effect of which is to stay all state court action against him. Though the accounting and Mr. Chabot's objections thereto do not conceptually seem to be an action against John Chabot as to which an automatic stay would apply, the argument is being advanced that proposed offsets against Mr. Chabot's distributive share are effectively affirmative claims against him.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2015

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JOYCE CHABOT VS. JOHN Y CHABOT

On June 3, 2015, beneficiary/litigant John Chabot filed a federal bankruptcy petition, one effect of which is to stay all state court action against him. Though the accounting and Mr. Chabot's objections thereto do not conceptually seem to be an action against John Chabot as to which an automatic stay would apply, the argument is being advanced that proposed offsets against Mr. Chabot's distributive share are effectively affirmative claims against him.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2015

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JOYCE CHABOT VS. JOHN Y CHABOT

On June 3, 2015, beneficiary/litigant John Chabot filed a federal bankruptcy petition, one effect of which is to stay all state court action against him. Though the accounting and Mr. Chabot's objections thereto do not conceptually seem to be an action against John Chabot as to which an automatic stay would apply, the argument is being advanced that proposed offsets against Mr. Chabot's distributive share are effectively affirmative claims against him.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2015

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

VICKY REESE ET AL VS SERGIO MINGRAMM

Following Ybarra, the Ninth Circuit BAP found that a fee award for post-petition pursuit of cross-complaints in state court were not discharged in the debtor’s bankruptcy in Bechtold v. Gillespie (In re Gillespie), 516 B.R. 586, 588 (Bankr. 9th Cir. 2014). “The focus of Ybarra’s inquiry does not turn upon who is named as plaintiff and who is named as defendant.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2014

CHRISTOPHER CALVI VS. VITO J. LBERATI ET AL

The court does not believe it has jurisdiction to compel a defendant who is in bankruptcy to submit to a deposition pursuant to a notice of deposition rather than a subpoena. In re Miller (9th Cir. BAP 2001) 262 B.R. 499 involved a subpoena which the state court failed to enforce. (Id. at 501-502.) A notice of deposition is based on the debtor deponent being a party to the action and appears to be a form of process against the debtor. (Id. at 505; compare CCP ?2025.280 with ?2020.010.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2014

  • Judge

    Robert Kane

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

BRADSHAW & ASSOCIATES PC VS. SHEILA DALTON ET AL

(2) On the subpoena duces tecum: the stay may also bar post judgment discovery in state court. Moving party's remedy, absent relief from the stay, is to conduct a Rule 2004 examination or other discovery in the bankruptcy proceedings. Contempt is not available by way of a motion to compel against the third party deponent. Contempt proceedings must be prosecuted pursuant to CCP Sections 1209, et seq.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2014

  • Judge

    Nils Rosenquest

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

THORSON VS LEGACY CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT

Bankruptcy Court Case # 1:13-bk-12106-MT, In re Adolfo Flores, and in particular the "Order Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. of the Bankruptcy Code Approving Stipulation Granting Relief from the Automatic Stay" granted by United States Bankruptcy Judge Maureen Tighe and entered on May 6, 2014 (copy attached).

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2014

  • Judge

    Miles Lang

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

SHARON WILENSKY ET AL VS ZF ENTERPRISES LLC ET AL

KPMG applied the FAA to a state court to require arbitration of claims coming within the scope of the arbitration provision “even where the result would be the possibly inefficient maintenance of separate proceedings in different forums.” (KPMG, supra, 132 S.Ct. at p. 26.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2014

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. NOEL THOMPSON

Subsequently, the bankruptcy court converted the proceeding to one under chapter 11. Gruntz moved to dismiss the criminal prosecution on the ground that the state court proceedings were in violation of the bankruptcy court's automatic stay. The state trial court denied the motion, and the matter proceeded to trial. Gruntz was convicted. On appeal in the state court, Gruntz argued that the criminal case was subject to the automatic stay.

  • Hearing

    Dec 30, 2013

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

UNION BANK NA VS TEXAS ENTERPRISES LLC ET AL

After the dispute arose between TELLC and Pacific over the two loan agreements, TELLC filed a complaint in Texas state court, Texas Enterprises, LLC v. Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., Morris County District Court Case No. 25022. (Petition, Ex. 14.) On December 19, 2012, the district court granted Pacific’s motion to abate and dismiss the action based on the arbitration provisions in the agreements between Pacific and TELLC.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2013

DORA JANE APUNA-GRUMMER VS. ROBERT ALLEN WILLBEE

In In re Beeney (9th Cir. 1992) 142 B.R. 360, 364, after receiving notice of discharge in a no asset case, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the bankruptcy case and for an order allowing him to proceed with the state court case. The bankruptcy court denied his motion, stating there was no need to reopen his case, but implying that he should have taken action when the bankruptcy matter was open and thus could not proceed with the state case.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2013

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

UNION BANK NA VS TEXAS ENTERPRISES LLC ET AL

After the dispute arose between TELLC and Pacific, TELLC filed a complaint in Texas state court entitled Texas Enterprises, LLC v. Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., Morris County District Court Case No. 25022. (Petition, Ex. 14.) On December 19, 2012, the district court granted Pacific’s motion to abate and dismiss the action based on the arbitration provisions in the two loan agreements between Pacific and TELLC.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2013

JAMES HOANG VS. THAN BOI PHUNG

Plaintiff Zhang indicates that both the Zhang and Hoang actions have been stayed as a result of the bankruptcy filing of common defendant Phung. Zhang has made a claim in the bankruptcy court. Zhang is concerned that plaintiff Hoang is no longer pursuing his action in state court and that the Hoang case might be dismissed. Zhang is concerned that dismissal of the Hoang case could result in the dismissal of the Zhang action in this court as well.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2013

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JAMES HOANG VS. THAN BOI PHUNG

Plaintiff Zhang indicates that both the Zhang and Hoang actions have been stayed as a result of the bankruptcy filing of common defendant Phung. Zhang has made a claim in the bankruptcy court. Zhang is concerned that plaintiff Hoang is no longer pursuing his action in state court and that the Hoang case might be dismissed. Zhang is concerned that dismissal of the Hoang case could result in the dismissal of the Zhang action in this court as well.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2013

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A. VS. TOM BLOCK

The Randalls have provided the BR judgment, entered March 18, 2013, it says "[t]he Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action of Plaintiff's Complaint are dismissed without prejudice to the Plaintiff pursuing these causes of action in the state court. [No copy of Ms. Zika's complaint is provided therefor it cannot be determine what these causes of action were. Judgment was entered on Plaintiff's First Cause of Action under section 523(a)(2)(A) in favor of Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2013

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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

The filing of an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Plaintiff does not preclude a state court from awarding discovery sanctions. Keitel v. Heubel (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 324, 334. =(302/JPT)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2013

  • Judge

    Ernst Halperin

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

LINDA WELLS VS BANK OF AMERICA NA ET AL

Defendants then argue that Wells should be barred from prosecuting this action because of judicial estoppel based upon Wells’s failure to disclose these claims in the bankruptcy proceedings. While defendants are correct that, generally speaking, failure to disclose pre-petition claims in bankruptcy can lead to dismissal of a state court proceeding asserting those claims (see Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1609-1610), that argument fails here for two reasons.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2013

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara 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.