Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV13872, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13872    Hearing Date: September 18, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

IMELDA BARRAGAN, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

THE HERTZ CORPORATION, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV13872 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY ACTION  

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

September 18, 2023 

 

On April 26, 2022, Plaintiff Imelda Barragan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants The Hertz Corporation (“Hertz”) and Dyllan William Williams (“Williams”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle incident on April 27, 2020.   

Hertz now brings a motion to stay all further proceedings in this action pursuant to bankruptcy filed by Hertz. 

Hertz’s counsel provides that on May 22, 2020, Hertz filed a Petition in Bankruptcy under Chapter 11, Case No. 20-11218 (MWF) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. On June 10, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Second Modified Third Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of the Hertz Corporation and its Debtor Affiliates and on June 30, 2021, the bankruptcy court entered a permanent injunction.  

Based on the foregoing, the automatic stay has been in place since May 2020. “‘The automatic stay is self-executing and is effective upon filing the bankruptcy petition.’” (Shaoxing County Huayue Import & Export v. Bhaumik (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1189.) Therefore, the motion to stay proceedings against Hertz is moot. 

It is unclear whether Hertz is seeking to stay the action only against Hertz, or to stay the entire action as to all defendants. The general rule is that “the automatic stay protects only the debtor,” and the “[b]ankruptcy of one defendant in a multidefendant case does not stay the case as to the remaining defendants.” (Higgins v. Superior Ct. (2017) 15 Cal. App. 5th 973, 979–80.) “[T]he automatic stay of judicial proceedings against a debtor in bankruptcy does not apply to nondebtor codefendants.” (Cross v. Cooper (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 357, 365, fn. 2.) Accordingly, the automatic stay does not extend to Defendant Williams.  

 

Moving party 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 15th day of September 2023 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court