Bremus v. AMR Corporation et al, No. 2:2012cv00100 - Document 38 (E.D. Va. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND FINAL ORDER denying 37 Motion Request for Oral Argument; granting 22 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff's lawsuit in this court is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A copy of this opinion and order was distributed to all counsel of record on 11/3/14. Signed by Chief District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith and filed on 11/3/14. (tbro)

Download PDF

Bremus v. AMR Corporation et al Doc. 38 •— i Fl _LD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NOV -3 2014 Norfolk Division IDT CLLHK, U Anne Melchor )iSIHii;i COL in 1 Bremus, Plaintiff, ACTION NO. V. AMR Corp., 2:12cvl00 et al. , Defendants. OPINION AND This matter Judgment on the accompanying 23, filed August 12, GRANTED. filed on filings Pleadings" AMR Eagle") 2014. The For Law in Support on the ECF of American American Eagle (collectively, reasons the stated 30, sufficient 2014, for is No. the court to for 22, and ECF No. Airlines, Airlines, Inc. Inc. "Defendants"), herein, DENIED, "Motion Motion," ("AMR"), and the court the Plaintiff's Request for Oral Argument, September are the ORDER ("Motion"), Corporation Airlines"), ("American before "Memorandum of by ("American comes FINAL as the decide on Motion is ECF No. 37, record the and matter without a hearing.1 See infra notes 4, 7 and accompanying text. Dockets.Justia.com I. Factual and Procedural History A. Bankruptcy Court Proceedings On November 29, 2011, related debtors (the the Defendants, "Debtors"), along initiated with a other voluntary bankruptcy proceeding under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code Bankruptcy (the Court "Bankruptcy for "Bankruptcy Court"). total, twenty the in the Southern District Defs.' companies Code") Mem. of Law in Supp. entered bankruptcy United New York of Mot. at the States (the at 2. same In time, involving more than 100,000 creditors, greater than one billion dollars 23,000 in Id. ; Defs.' The liabilities, and more than Reply to PL's Opp'n ("Reply") Plaintiff filed a Court on January 3, 2012, proof of Attached February court ECF No. 2012, the Plaintiff against the claim. claim with the Bankruptcy for "nonpayment of wages and reversal Files, 24, of at 7, ECF No. 35. of insurance payments." PL's Resp. in Opp'n, & proofs Defendants 33-1. Over filed Ex. A, Bremus Aff. one the month later, Complaint for employment in on this discrimination and retaliation under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C § 2000 et seq. ECF No. 1. The alleged discrimination took place between September 2009 and February 28, 2012, Plaintiff's September 2011. this employment court entered discrimination Compl. an at Order action 3-8. staying until resolution of the bankruptcy proceeding. ECF No. 3. after On the the On May 4, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court set July 16, 2012, as the deadline (the claim. Defs.' Mem. Law in Supp. of Mot., of May 4, of the claimant for creditors to file a proof of 2012 ("Bar Date Order") Bar potential "Bar Date") Date Order claimants, "will be at 1-2, ("Bar Date it clearly and forever Ex. A, Bankr. barred ECF No. Notice") stated from added). The Bar Plaintiff on May 18, 2012. Ex. B, claim ECF No. for Id. Date Notice at Ex. 23-1. Notice was sent that an asserting against the debtors and their Chapter 11 estates." (emphasis Ct. Order was to all untimely such claim Id. at 16-17 mailed B, Baumgarten Aff. to the at 2 & 23-2.2 The Plaintiff did not file her proof of employment discrimination than one year after the Bar Date. Bremus Proof of Claim, ECF No. until August 5, 2013, PL's Resp. in Opp'n, more Ex. B, 33-2. 2 The Bar Date Notice also instructed all potential claimants to file proofs of claim against each Debtor in cases where the claimant had claims against multiple Debtors. Bar Date Notice at 16. The Plaintiff, through counsel, filed only one employment discrimination proof of claim against "AMR Corp. et al." PL's Resp. in Opp'n, Ex. B, Bremus Proof of Claim, ECF No. 33-2. This employment discrimination proof of claim was attached to a copy of the employment discrimination complaint, which named the individual Defendants. Id. The Defendants assert that, to the extent that the employment discrimination proof of claim is not considered to be untimely, no proof of claim was formally filed against either American Eagle or American Airlines. Defs.' Mem. Law in Supp. of Mot. at 7. It is unnecessary for this court to decide the issue of whether the Plaintiff's proof of claim can be construed to include all Defendants, or just AMR, because the employment discrimination proof of claim was untimely filed. On October 21, 2013, "Findings of Fact, Sections 1129 (a) the Federal Fourth Conclusions of Law, Rule of Bankruptcy Joint Chapter Defs.' Mem. affirmed which Bankruptcy Court entered its and Order Pursuant to and (b) of the Bankruptcy Code and Rule 3020 of Amended Order"), the the Procedure 11 Law in Supp. Debtors' Confirming Plan" (the of Mot., proposed Ex. Debtor's "Confirmation D, Fourth ECF No. Amended 23-4, Joint Chapter 11 Plan (the "Plan"). IcL at Ex. F, ECF No. 23-6.3 The effective date of Date"). No. the Plan was December 9, (the "Effective Id. at Ex. E, Notice of Entry of Confirmation Order, ECF 23-5. Section 1.91 of the Plan defines Disallowed to include those that have Debtor on the been 2 013 § 1.91. to claims are "not been listed by such Schedules and as to which no proof of Claim has filed by pursuant which the any applicable Final Order deadline of the or deemed timely filed Bankruptcy Court." Plan Section 1.94 further clarifies that "[f]or the avoidance of doubt, if no proof of Claim has been filed by the applicable deadline and the Claim is not listed on the Schedules . . . such 3 The parties did not file the complete version of the Plan given its length. All documents associated with the case are publicly available at www.amrcaseinfo.com. As these documents are matters of the public record, the court may consider them when ruling on the Defendants' Motion. See infra Part II. All references to the Plan, whether they were included in the filings made to this court or taken from the public record, will simply be cited as the Plan § [Relevant Section]. Claim shall be purposes." Id. Disallowed and shall be disregarded for all § 1.94. Unless otherwise provided in the Plan or approved by the Bankruptcy Court, all claimholders are enjoined from "commencing or continuing in any manner any action or other proceeding of any kind with respect to any such Claim or Equity Interest § 10.6. against The the Debtors Bankruptcy or the Court's Reorganized Debtors." Confirmation Order Id. explicitly copied this language, stating that: Except as otherwise provided in the Plan or this confirmation order, upon the Effective Date, all existing Claims against the Debtors and Equity Interests in deemed to be, the Debtors shall be, and shall discharged and terminated, be and all holders of Claims and Equity Interests (and all representatives, trustees, or agents on behalf of each holder) shall be precluded and enjoined from asserting against the Reorganized Debtors, or any of their assets or property, any other or further Claim or Equity Interest based upon any act or omission, transaction, or other activity of any kind or nature that occurred prior to the Effective filed the Defs.' para. Mem. whether or not such holder has a proof of Claim or proof of Equity whether or not the facts or legal therefore were known or existed prior to Interest bases Date, and effective date. Law in Supp. of Mot., 61 (emphasis added). Thus, Ex. D, Confirmation Order after July 16, 2012, no further proofs of claim would be allowed against the Debtors. B. Proceedings in This Court As previously mentioned, the Plaintiff filed her employment discrimination suit in this court on February 24, 2012, and this court stayed the case on February 28, 2012. On August 12, the Defendants Civil filed Plaintiff's proceedings and, Plaintiff Supp. from of Mot. The Motion asking this because case instant 12(c), Procedure the it discharged was under court to in pursuing it in this court. a Disputed Claim, filed in her which Response she in argues that: to ECF No. Defendants which they assert Plaintiff was raise an objection Law in filed their that the Reply and, thus, timeliness the means PL's Resp. in on August 18, 2014, in claim filed by the unrelated to her employment discrimination claim. argue that the Plaintiff's not Disputed, to timely and 2) her claim is of timely proof of Reply to PL's Opp'n at 3 n.l, to she on 33. Defs.' Plaintiff bankruptcy Mem. 1) rather than a Disallowed Claim, failure Opp'n at 1-5, object the Opposition that any objection they may have had was waived. to the Defs.' filed her proof of claim on January 3, 2 012; Disallowed, dismiss of at 1. September 12, 2014, The Rule therefore, a permanent injunction now bars the Plaintiff Defendants' Federal 2014, it. Id. "file [] and, at a ECF No. untimely proof 35. They further of claim is therefore they were not required 4. Rather, motion with accept her late-filed Proof of Claim." the the Id. burden was Bankruptcy at 5. on Court the to On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a Request for Oral Argument on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.4 II. A motion for Standard of Review judgment on the pleadings may be brought "[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial." under Fed. the R. same Rule 12(b)(6)." (4th Cir. Civ. P. 12(c). standards Occupy 2013) . Thus, A Rule as 12(c) motion is a to v. Columbia motion Haley, 738 "assessed dismiss F.3d under 107, 115 such a motion should be granted only if, "after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true and drawing all from those facts in the reasonable factual inferences plaintiff's favor, that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of his claim entitling him to 741 F.3d 470, 474 (4th Cir. the complaint, answers, the and complaint motions that Massey v. were Ojaniit, relief." 2014). appears facts Drager v. certain in support of PLIVA USA, Inc., District courts may consider matters of public record,5 exhibits to answer, and integral to 759 it F.3d 343, "exhibits the 347 to the Rule complaint and authentic." (4th Cir. 2014); 12(c) see also 4 The Plaintiff's counsel filed a request for oral argument "on the defendants Rule 6(e) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings." PL's Request for Oral Arg., ECF No. 37. The court assumes that the Plaintiff is referring to the Defendants' Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as opposed to a Rule 6(e) motion that is not provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 See supra note 3. Fed. R. Civ. an exhibit P. to 10(c) a ("A copy of a written instrument that pleading is part of the pleading is for all The purpose of a discharge in bankruptcy is to "give[] the purposes.") . III. debtor a 'fresh start' liability for U.S. 364 356, "discharge old in liability for Bankruptcy Cir. 1994) . A U.S.C. disputed, right "debt" whether liquidated, A or In is payment Va. relieves not Coll. v. Code makes clear debts debtor but those Rosenfeld, is such or it from further the defined as "claim" her, Cmty. Bankruptcy re unliquidated, undisputed, to The pre-petition Code." § 101(12). payment, Cent. bankruptcy all the by releasing him, debts." (2006). Discussion 23 F.3d of 546 that personal 833, 836 (4th "liability on a claim." right is reduced contingent, a excepted under further defined as fixed, Katz, a to matured, "right 11 to judgment, unmatured, legal, equitable." Id. § 101(5). Thus, any arising prior absent an applicable exception, to bankruptcy and the is discharged "discharge operates to permanently stay any attempt to hold the debtor . . . liable for discharged debt." In re Rosenfeld, U.S.C. 23 F.3d at 836 (quoting 11 § 524(a)(2)). A. The "Timely" Claim The Plaintiff's first argument, proof of claim, is easily that she submitted a timely rejected. Although her January 3, 2012, the Bar Date proof of it claim. & Attached Files at employment certainly was it did not relate discrimination Bremus Aff. of claim was July 16, 2012, insurance payments; employment of discrimination was wages and or even mention, to, PL's 7. for any Resp. In fact, made unpaid in Opp'n, Ex. A, no claim or mention until filed in this court on February 24, 2012. submitted before this Complaint ECF No. was 1. The filing of a Complaint in this court does not constitute the filing of a proof of claim in Bankruptcy Court. See, Voyages Co. , 405 F.3d 127, 131 (3d Cir. informal may be with proofs the of claim bankruptcy undisputedly court"). reflects discrimination proof 2005) allowed, Finally, that of e.g., claim they must record not be "filed clearly Plaintiff's was Classic (noting that while the the In re Am. and employment filed until August 5, 2013, well after the Bar Date of July 16, Resp. Ex. B, Bremus Proof of Claim (filed on August 5, in Opp'n, 2013). 2012. PL's The issue now becomes whether the Plaintiff's employment discrimination proof of claim is a Disputed or Disallowed Claim. B. Whether the Claim is Disputed or Disallowed Failure to comply with a bankruptcy court's deadline, as the Bar Date Order in this claim unless "excusable bankruptcy court. Servs. v. Co. Fed. case, neglect" R. is Bankr. Brunswick Assocs. P. Ltd. is cause shown for disallowing a upon 9006(b)(1); P'ship, such 507 motion to Pioneer U.S. 380, the Inv. 389 (1993) (quoting Fed. empowers a movant's failure R. bankruptcy to Bankr. court comply P. 9006(b)(1)) to with result of excusable neglect.'"). bankruptcy court is discharged, pursuing potential the late earlier plan claimants is are filing the 'was deadline if the Unless leave is sought from the untimely pre-petition reorganization an a to file an untimely proof of and its permit ("Rule 9006(b)(1) claimant is litigation. confirmed prevented by from claim, enjoined Once the the claim a bankruptcy litigating from debtor's court, issues that should have been raised in the bankruptcy court. Valley Historic Ltd. P'ship v. Bank of New York, 486 F.3d 831, 838-39 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) ("A bankruptcy court's order of confirmation is treated as a final judgment with res judicata effect."). The key issue in this case is whether the Plaintiff's claim qualifies as a Disputed or a Disallowed Claim. Disputed, then, under the terms of the Plan, the bankruptcy proceeding. Disputed Claims"). See Plan On the other hand, If the claim is the claim survives § 7.2 ("Procedures for a Disallowed Claim "shall be disregarded for all purposes," meaning that the claim will be discharged upon the Effective Date of the Plan and an injunction will serve to bar the Plaintiff from "continuing in any manner" her employment discrimination §§ 1.94, The Plan is 10.6. suit against the Defendants. Id. consistent with the Bankruptcy Code, 10 which states that a discharge "operates as an injunction against the commencement § 524(a)(2); right or continuation see also to payment constitutes an pre-petition arises debt 11 U.S.C. 23 F.3d at 836 In re Rosenfeld, which applicable exception. of action." (" [A] ny prior and is to the bankruptcy discharged, absent an The discharge operates to permanently stay any attempt to hold the debtor personally liable for discharged debts."). The Plan, as approved by the Bankruptcy Court, specifically describes the effect of untimely filed proofs of claim. § 1.91 (defining Disallowed Claims to include those See Plan that have "not been listed by such Debtor on the Schedules and as to which no proof of Claim has been filed by the applicable deadline or deemed timely filed Bankruptcy Court"); pursuant to id. § 1.94 any Final Order of ("For the avoidance of doubt, the if no proof of Claim has been filed by the applicable deadline and the be Claim is not Disallowed and shall be this of on listed on the Schedules case, 5, 2 013, July 16, 2012, and discrimination claim the August Debtors at the . such Claim shall Plaintiff discrimination over one that was . disregarded for all purposes."). it is undisputed that the claim for employment . not year the listed beginning of 11 in the after filed her proof Bankruptcy Court the Bar Plaintiff's on the the In of employment Schedules bankruptcy Date filed by proceeding. Compare Order Defs.' of Mem. May 4, July 16, 2012), of Claim Law in at 2012 Supp. 16-17 with PL's Resp. of Mot., Ex. (setting in Opp'n, (filed on August 5, 2013) . Thus, of the Plan and the Bankruptcy Rules, A, the Ex. Bankr. Bar Date Ct. as B, Bremus Proof under both the terms the Plaintiff's employment discrimination claim is Disallowed. Nonetheless, the Plaintiff asserts, case law in support, instead a Disputed that her employment discrimination claim is Claim. Section 1.94 of the Plan, proof of claim Schedules and interest has was "as without any analysis or PL's in Opp'n at 3-4. Under Disputed Claims include those where a untimely to Resp. which interposed filed, the an but Debtors or objection." was listed any other party Plan on § 1.94. the in The Plaintiff argues that because no objection has been filed by the Defendants in the Bankruptcy Court, her employment discrimination suit must be allowed to proceed. PL's Resp. Opp'n makes it at 4. Defendants' This argument burden to rectify no the sense, as Plaintiff's is not error in in the the Bankruptcy Court. In re Enron Corp. , 419 F.3d 115, 121 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted) ("The burden excusable neglect lies with the late-claimant."). of proving Moreover, the simple fact that this issue is being litigated now does not make this claim a Disputed Claim, or Allowed Claim, 12 in the Bankruptcy Court.6 This court must instead look to the plain language of the Plan as described discrimination above. claim is Thus, a the Plaintiff's Disallowed Claim, employment not a Disputed Claim. Because the Plaintiff's claim is a it was not filed before the Bar Date, Disallowed Plan § 10.3, is continuing action barred or other "from . . proceeding . of since it was discharged upon the Effective Date of July 16, 2012, forever Claim any and the Plaintiff in kind" any manner relating to any her employment discrimination suit. Id. § 10.6; see In re Rosenfeld, 23 F.3d at 836. This bankruptcy discharge: is consistent to "give [] with the policy the debtor a behind a xfresh start' by releasing him, her, or it from further liability for old debts." Cent. Va. If Cmty. the Coll., Plaintiff 546 U.S. wishes at 364. to pursue an untimely employment discrimination proof of claim, the proper procedure is to file a motion with the Bankruptcy Court for leave to do so, pursuant to Federal Rule correctly of note Bankruptcy the 9006(b). Bankruptcy jurisdiction to consider such a motion. Defs.' The Court Opp'n at 6; that Procedure see also Defs.' Mem. Law in Supp. Defendants has retained Reply to PL's of Mot., Ex. A, 6 To the extent that the Plaintiff's arguments may be construed as alleging that her employment discrimination proof of claim should be Disputed, considered they are Allowed, rejected, as opposed because definitively Disallowed. 13 to this proof Disallowed of claim or is Bankr. Ct. retain jurisdiction from or 1310, Order related 1314 of to May to correctly hear this (4th Cir. 2012 and at 10 ("[T]his determine Order."); 1996) retained "disputed, pending, 4, all In re Varat (finding that jurisdiction Court matters shall arising Enters. , 81 the bankruptcy F.3d court post-confirmation and new claims"). Therefore, over the Plaintiff's only remedy is to seek leave to file an untimely proof of claim with the Bankruptcy Court. IV. For the Defendants' foregoing Motion for CONCLUSION reasons, Judgment this on court the GRANTS Pleadings, the without prejudice to the Plaintiff's ability to petition the Bankruptcy Court to accept Plaintiff's her lawsuit untimely in this proof court of is claim. Thus, DISMISSED the WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Plaintiff's request for oral argument is DENIED.7 The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Opinion and Final Order to counsel for the parties. /s/ it is so ordered. Rebecca Beach Smith T . Chief o/Ta United States District Judge "Wr REBECCA BEACH CHIEF UNITED SMITH STATES DISTRICT JUDGE November $ , 2014 7 After full examination of the briefs and the record, the court has facts determined that a hearing is unnecessary, as the and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be aided significantly by oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Civ. 14 R. 7(J).

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.