Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV47865, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47865    Hearing Date: February 2, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On December 15, 2020, Plaintiff Yesenia Robles (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants City of Lynwood (the “City”), County of Los Angeles (the “County”), and Plamex Investment, LLC for injuries relating to Plaintiff’s trip and fall on a sidewalk.  Plaintiff has dismissed her complaint as to the City and the County. 

Defendant Plamex Investment, LLC (“Defendant”) now moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s complaint.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. 

Defendant asserts that after Plaintiff filed her complaint, Defendant filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California on April 14, 2021.  Defendant states that the bankruptcy court set a supplemental bar date of January 7, 2022, by which all persons with a potential claim against Defendant were required to submit a Proof of Claim with the bankruptcy court.  Defendant asserts that Plaintiff was served with the supplemental bar date, but Plaintiff failed to file a Proof of Claim.  Defendant avers that Plaintiff is barred from prosecuting this action against Defendant as a result. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant fails to establish that this Court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of Plaintiff’s complaint.  Plaintiff asserts that she intends on filing a motion for relief from the automatic stay imposed by Defendant’s bankruptcy filing, and that Plaintiff will stipulate to not seeking any assets outside of applicable insurance policies. 

In reply, Defendant avers that Plaintiff’s claims are barred against Defendant because Plaintiff failed to timely file a Proof of Claim in Defendant's bankruptcy case.  Defendant contends that Plaintiff erroneously argues that she has a right to relief from the automatic stay because lifting the stay is not relevant to this issue.  Defendant asserts that lifting the stay does not change the fact that Plaintiff failed to timely file a Proof of Claim in the bankruptcy case, which resulted in her claim being disallowed and discharged. 

The Court notes that on August 10, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice Re: Bankruptcy providing that Defendant filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on April 14, 2021.  Defendant provides that Plaintiff was named as an unsecured creditor in the bankruptcy case which triggered an automatic stay in this action. 

As soon as a bankruptcy case is filed, an automatic stay immediately goes into effect and generally prevents creditors, and other parties, from taking most actions against property of the bankruptcy estate, the debtor, and the debtor's property.  This injunction continues until a bankruptcy court order lifting the stay has been entered or the stay has expired.  (11 USC § 362.)  The stay arises automatically by operation of law upon filing of the bankruptcy petition. No court order is required to activate the stay.  (11 USC § 362(a).)

Judicial proceedings in violation of the automatic stay are void.  (Sindler v. Brennan (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1353 [trial court’s dismissal of case violated automatic stay and was void on its face], citing Pope v. Manville Forest Products Corp. (5th Cir.1985) 778 F.2d 238, 239.)  Therefore, “ ‘absent the bankruptcy court's lift of the stay, ... a case such as the one before us must, as a general rule, simply languish on the court's docket until final disposition of the bankruptcy proceeding.’ ”  (Ellis v. Consolidated Diesel Elec. Corp. (10th Cir. 1990) 894 F.2d 371, 373 [order granting motion for summary judgment for defendants in violation of automatic stay was void]; see also Hillis Motors, Inc. v. Hawaii Auto. Dealers' Ass'n (9th Cir.1993) 997 F.2d 581, 585-86 [“actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are void rather than voidable.”].) 

            In this case, Plaintiff asserts that she intends to file a motion for relief from the automatic stay in the bankruptcy court, while Defendant argues that lifting the stay will not change the fact that Plaintiff’s claim was discharged and disallowed.  Accordingly, it appears that the automatic stay in this case has not been lifted.  There is no evidence presented to suggest otherwise.  Thus, Defendant fails to establish that this Court has authority to hear its motion for judgment on the pleadings at this time in light of the automatic stay. 

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is taken off calendar.  The ruling is without prejudice to Defendant re-filing the motion after submitting evidence showing that the automatic stay has been lifted.   

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 2^nd day of February 2023