Louie v. Ramirez et al
Filing
25
ORDER granting 17 Motion to Refer this case to the US Bankruptcy Court, signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/21/11. CASE CLOSED. (Kastilahn, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
GEORGE S. LOUIE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ADAM RAMIREZ dba RAMIREZ TOWING, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Case No. 2:11-CV-00882 JAM-KJN (
ORDER GRANTING TRUSTEE’S
MOTION TO REFER THIS CASE TO
THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
This matter comes before the Court as a Motion to Refer this
20
Case to the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of
21
California (Doc. #17) presented by Alan S. Fukushima (“the Trustee”
22
or “Mr. Fukushima”), Chapter 7 Trustee in the bankruptcy case In re
23
Louie, United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of
24
California, Case No. 11-25036-C-7.
25
Ramirez Towing; Ines Aceves dba Aceves Auto Repair and Ace Tires;
26
John Maple dba AC Auto Dismantling; Timothy Curtis dba Trophy Car
27
Wash; Gas Max, LLC dba Gas Max Gasoline; Kevin Clark dba Allen’s
28
Auto Body; Allen Sustin dba Golden Valley Auto Body; Matt Fowles
1
Defendants Adam Ramirez dba
1
dba Golden Valley Tax Service; Andrew and Holly Fernandez dba A&H
2
Towing and Recovery; Kulwinder Shergill dba Lucky Tire & Auto
3
Repairs; Surbir Soos dba Victory Motors International; Larry Boals
4
dba Sunrise Motors; Timothy Thomas dba A1 Body Shop; Charles Clark
5
dba Clark Pest Control of Stockton, Inc.; Tajinder Singh; Ranber
6
Singh and Amarjit Kaur dba Smitty’s Liquor/Feather River Check
7
Cashing(“Defendants”) oppose the motion (Doc. #20).1
8
I.
9
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 20, 2010, Plaintiff George S. Louie (“The Debtor”
10
or “Mr. Louie”) filed the instant case.
He alleges that Defendants
11
failed to accommodate his disability in violation of the Americans
12
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) of 1990, California Civil Code
13
Sections 54 and 54.1, and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.
14
On February 28, 2011, Mr. Louie was placed into involuntary
15
bankruptcy pursuant to Title 11 U.S.C. § 303: In re George S.
16
Louie, United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of
17
California, Case No. 11-25036-C-7 (the “Involuntary Bankruptcy
18
Case”).
19
for relief.
20
On March 30, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
Mr. Fukushima was appointed as Chapter 7 Trustee.
On April 1, 2011, Mr. Louie filed a voluntary bankruptcy case:
21
In re George Sing Louie, United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern
22
District of California, Case No. 2011-28344 (the “Voluntary
23
Bankruptcy Case”).
24
On May 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court consolidated the
25
Involuntary Bankruptcy Case and the Voluntary Bankruptcy Case as
26
Case No. 11-250360C-7 (the “Bankruptcy Case”) and appointed Mr.
27
1
28
This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled
for November 10, 2011.
2
1
2
Fukushima as the Chapter 7 Trustee of the consolidated cases.
Through the Trustee’s investigation, he discovered that the
3
Debtor has more than 80 cases pending in various California state
4
courts and federal district courts.
5
allege that defendants failed to accommodate Mr. Louie’s disability
6
in violation of the ADA.
7
by the Trustee, this Court issued a related case order (Doc. #21)
8
relating eleven other ADA cases pending before the district court,
9
all before this Court.
10
13
14
On September 22, 2011, upon application
The Trustee now moves to refer this case to
the Bankruptcy Court (Doc. #17).
11
12
Most or all of the cases
II.
A.
OPINION
Legal Standard
1.
Referral to Bankruptcy Court
28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) provides that federal courts shall have
15
“original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings
16
arising under title 11, or arising in or related to a case under
17
title 11.”
18
Supreme Court described the scope of “related to” jurisdiction
19
under Section 1334(b):
20
21
22
23
In Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300 (1995), the
Proceedings “related to” the bankruptcy include
(1) causes of action owned by the debtor which become
property of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541,
and (2) suits between third parties which have an
effect on the bankruptcy estate.
Celotex Corp., 514 U.S. at 308 n. 5.
24
Where the cause of action is not property of the estate in
25
bankruptcy, courts in the Ninth Circuit utilize the Pacor test.
26
The Pacor test considers “whether the outcome of that [civil]
27
proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being
28
administered in bankruptcy.”
Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984,
3
1
994 (1984).
2
courts consider “the efficient use of judicial resources, delay and
3
costs to the parties, uniformity of bankruptcy administration, the
4
prevention of forum shopping, and other related factors” when
5
deciding whether to refer cases to the Bankruptcy Court.
6
Farms v. International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
7
Warehousemen & Helpers, an Unincorporated Ass’n., 124 F.3d 999,
8
1008 (9th Cir. 1997).
9
10
B.
Additionally, the Ninth Circuit suggests district
Security
Claims for Relief
The Trustee asks the Court to refer this case to the
11
Bankruptcy Court because the instant case is property of the
12
bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).
13
case is also related to the bankruptcy case because the Trustee is
14
already prosecuting thirty-two other ADA cases in the Bankruptcy
15
Court filed by the Debtor.
16
it would be an extreme burden for the Trustee to prosecute many
17
cases in multiple courts.
18
The instant
Additionally, the estate has no cash so
Defendants counter by arguing that the present case is
19
“related” to the Bankruptcy Case only to the extent that the debtor
20
is also the plaintiff in the present case.
21
Trustee’s interest is to receive any money recovered as a result of
22
this action.
23
this case.
24
Court is not a prudent use of judicial resources because if there
25
is a jury trial the Bankruptcy Court would need to refer the jury
26
trial proceedings to the District Court and the District Court is
27
more familiar with the ADA issues involved in this action than the
28
Bankruptcy Court.
The extent of the
Furthermore, no bankruptcy issues are involved in
Defendants also argue that referral to the Bankruptcy
Finally, Defendants argue that the Trustee will
4
1
2
not be prejudiced if this case remains in the District Court.
The Court finds that pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541, the instant
3
case is the legal interest of the debtor and is thus property of
4
the estate.
5
irrelevant since the instant case is related to the Bankruptcy
6
Case.
7
exercises its discretion to refer this case to the Bankruptcy
8
Court.
9
The fact that this case concerns noncore ADA claims is
Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), this Court
Contrary to Defendants’ concerns, referral to the Bankruptcy
10
Court is an efficient use of judicial resources.
Bankruptcy courts
11
routinely handle adversary proceedings and both the Bankruptcy
12
Court judges and the District Court judges in this district are
13
under heavy caseloads.
14
result in an overall savings of judicial resources, as well as
15
convenience for the parties because it will result in the same
16
court handling the adversary proceedings and the overall
17
administration of the underlying Bankruptcy Case.
18
Court GRANTS the Trustee’s Motion to Refer This Case to the United
19
States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California.
Referral to the Bankruptcy Court will
20
Accordingly, the
III. ORDER
21
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the Motion
22
to Refer This Case to the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern
23
District of California.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 21, 2011
____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
28
5
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
