Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV02549, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02549    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

VST 2020-NPL1 REO, LLC v. Ashley Aarons et al., Case No. 22SMCV02549

Hearing Date May 23, 2023

Application Re: Aarons’ Notice of Stay of Proceedings

On April 17, 2023 defendant Aarons filed a notice that her bankruptcy stay has been reinstated in BK Case No. 2:19-bk-18316-NB after that case was converted to Chapter 7. Plaintiff VST argues Aaron’s attempt to invoke the stay is without merit, since the bankruptcy court granted plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest relief from the stay on June 22, 2020, stating “this order is binding and effective despite any conversion of this bankruptcy case to a case under any other chapter of the Bankruptcy Code[.]” See plaintiff’s request for judicial notice exhibit 1. The court takes judicial notice of that document.

VST notes the bankruptcy court order reinstating the stay after conversion to chapter 7 contains an explicit carve-out, stating “the automatic stay will be reimposed upon the revested property only to the extent that relief from the stay was not previously granted by the Court during this case.” See Notice of Stay filed 4/17/2023. VST argues Aaron’s notice is a bad faith delaying tactic, and no stay is in place.

Bankruptcy courts have exclusive jurisdiction to construe the automatic stay and to grant relief. Abdallah v. United Sav. Bank (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1109.

Aarons argues this court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the automatic stay applies, and VST should bring this matter up before the bankruptcy court. The court agrees. Determining whether lifting of the stay on VST’s predecessor-in-interest also lifts the stay as to VST is outside the purview of the state court. VST asks this court to interpret a bankruptcy order, but such interpretation must be done by the bankruptcy court. DENIED.