Waldman et al v. Stone, No. 3:2010cv00164 - Document 32 (W.D. Ky. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 8/25/11 denying 26 Motion to Stay cc:counsel (JSS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-164-H RANDALL SCOTT WALDMAN, RW LIMITED CO., STONE MACHINE AND FABRICATION, LLC, INTEGRITY MANUFACTURING, LLC APPELLANTS V. RONALD B. STONE APPELLEE MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On November 22, 2010, this Court affirmed a decision of the Bankruptcy Court awarding a judgment in favor of Ronald Stone against Randall Waldman, RW Limited Co., Stone Machine and Fabrication, LLC, and Bruce Atherton, jointly and severally in an amount in excess of $3 million. Appellants have filed a timely appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Subsequently, Stone has partially executed on his judgment. Now, Appellants seek to stay enforcement of that judgment based upon the recent Supreme Court pronouncement in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594; _____ U.S._____ (June 23, 2011). In Stern, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Court lacked the constitutional authority to enter a judgment on a state law tortious interference claim which was not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor s proof of claim. Id. at 2620. Although the full ramifications of this decision are not entirely clear, the Court seemed to be saying that the claims at issue in Stern did not fit in any of the categories of claims properly assigned to legislative courts by Congress. See id. at 2610. Stone s adversary proceedings at issue here appear to be much more closely related to the bankruptcy proceedings than the adversary proceedings of the bankrupt in Stern, where the bankrupt sought to collect an inheritance expectancy from her deceased husband. That claim seems particularly unrelated to core bankruptcy proceedings. Here, Stone s claims are more likely intimately related to creditors claims to the bankruptcy estate. Appellants could have raised this issue with this Court, but did not do so. In Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982), the Supreme Court set forth some of the same basic legal principles which it has expanded upon in Stern. Moreover, on March 19, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in which the Supreme Court ultimately adopted and affirmed in large measure. See Marshall v. Stern, 600 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, the availability of the argument was certainly known. Given that there is an arguable basis that jurisdiction exists[s], this Court cannot see a compelling reason for staying its previous order. United States v. Menichino, 172 F.3d 50 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 65 (2d Cir. 1986)). Being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellants motion to stay enforcement of the prior judgment pending appeal is DENIED. August 25, 2011 cc: Counsel of Record 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
