by

In civil litigation involving defendants who file for bankruptcy, automatic stays under the Bankruptcy Code can complicate the proceedings. A recent California decision illustrates how courts handle the interplay between bankruptcy stays and ongoing civil cases. If you are navigating a case involving bankruptcy, it is crucial to consult a knowledgeable California bankruptcy attorney to assess your legal options.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiffs, acting as successors in interest to the decedent, filed a wrongful death action in federal court against the defendant and other parties. Allegedly, the claims arose from the decedent’s death while in custody, which the plaintiffs attributed to negligence and deliberate indifference by the defendants. The first amended complaint sought damages for violations of constitutional rights, wrongful death, and medical malpractice.

Reportedly, in November 2024, the defendant filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. Shortly thereafter, the defendant filed a suggestion of bankruptcy and notice of stay, prompting the federal court in California to vacate a scheduling conference and consider the applicability of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The court initially directed the plaintiffs to file a status report within ten days of any modifications to the bankruptcy stay. Continue reading

by

In bankruptcy cases, courts must carefully evaluate whether debts are dischargeable under the Bankruptcy Code. This can be challenging, particularly in cases involving alleged misconduct, as demonstrated by a recent California bankruptcy ruling. If you are struggling to pay your debts, bankruptcy may be an option for you, and it is vital to consult a California bankruptcy attorney who can help you protect your financial interests.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the debtor was involved in a partnership with her close friend, the defendant, to purchase and flip properties in Florida. The defendant provided substantial funding under two joint venture agreements, expecting the debtor to oversee renovations and sales. Unbeknownst to the defendant, the debtor also entered into similar agreements with a third party for the same properties, creating overlapping obligations.

Allegedly, despite receiving significant funds, the debtor failed to perform as promised, misdirecting proceeds from property sales and retaining funds for unauthorized purposes. After the defendant discovered the debtor’s actions, she filed a state court lawsuit in Washington, alleging breach of contract and partnership dissolution. The court entered a judgment against the debtor, holding her liable for damages and awarding attorneys’ fees. Continue reading

by

In bankruptcy cases, debtors are required to follow strict procedural guidelines to avoid dismissal of their appeals. Recently, a California district court reinforced this requirement by dismissing a pro se debtor’s bankruptcy appeal due to procedural lapses, serving as a reminder of the importance of adhering to court-imposed deadlines in bankruptcy matters. If you are facing bankruptcy or an appeal, it is crucial to consult a California bankruptcy attorney who can help ensure compliance with legal requirements.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the debtor filed a notice of appeal in a bankruptcy case originating in the Eastern District of California. Allegedly, the debtor, proceeding without an attorney, was required to designate the appellate record and submit a statement of issues as outlined by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8006. The debtor, however, reportedly failed to meet these obligations, which led to delays in the proceedings.

After her initial filing, the debtor sought the appointment of counsel and requested an extension of time to file her appellate brief. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) denied the appointment of counsel, reasoning that Nicole had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances or a strong likelihood of success on appeal, both of which are required for appointing counsel in civil matters. The BAP then transferred her appeal to the District Court for further handling. Continue reading

by

While people have the right to be represented by an attorney in criminal cases, they rarely enjoy similar rights in civil cases. For example, in bankruptcy, debtors can seek the appointment of counsel, but their requests will only be granted in exceptional circumstances, as discussed in a recent California ruling. If you are overwhelmed with debt, you should meet with a California bankruptcy attorney to evaluate whether bankruptcy may be an option for you.

History of the Case

It is reported that the debtor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The court then granted a creditor relief from the automatic stay, which had been initiated when the debtor filed for bankruptcy. The debtor claimed that the creditor had wrongfully acquired the property at issue through fraud. The bankruptcy court also dismissed the debtor’s Chapter 13 case after the debtor failed to amend her debt adjustment plan as directed by the court. The court had ordered the debtor to omit a particular creditor from the plan, but the debtor failed to do so by the June 28, 2024, deadline, resulting in a dismissal of the case due to prejudicial delay. The debtor appealed both orders and moved for appointment of counsel in both matters.

Appointment of Counsel in Bankruptcy Cases

On appeal, the court reviewed both of the debtor’s motions for the appointment of counsel. It applied the standard for appointing counsel in civil cases, which requires a showing of “exceptional circumstances” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This involves evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits and the debtor’s ability to articulate claims in light of the legal issues’ complexity. Continue reading

by

One of the benefits of bankruptcy is that it prohibits creditors from pursuing claims while the bankruptcy is pending. The automatic stay does not bar all non-bankruptcy-related activities, though, as discussed in a recent California case. If you are overwhelmed with debt, you should meet with a California bankruptcy lawyer to discuss whether bankruptcy may be an option for you.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

Reportedly, in January 2022, the Superior Court appointed a receiver, managed by its president, to oversee a property located in Perris, California, which was owned by the debtor. By March 2023, the court approved the sale of this property. Shortly after, the debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in early March 2023, initiating a bankruptcy case. In the following weeks, the receiver requested court approval to retain legal counsel for the bankruptcy case, which the court granted.

It is alleged that a motion to lift the automatic stay on the property was filed in April 2023 and granted shortly thereafter. In June 2023, the debtor filed a motion for sanctions, alleging that the receiver and an in-house attorney violated the automatic stay by filing various documents in the receivership action before the stay was lifted. The bankruptcy court heard and denied this motion in July 2023. The debtor appealed the denial, and the appeal was transferred to the appellate court in August 2023. Continue reading

by
People who carry substantial debts often have difficulty making payments. Fortunately, many people are eligible to seek debt relief via bankruptcy. Once a party files a bankruptcy action, creditors are automatically stayed from pursuing claims against them. In some instances, though, the courts will find cause to lift an automatic stay. If a court makes such a decision, the debtor can file an appeal, but the federal courts can only hear appeals in cases in which they have jurisdiction, as discussed in a recent California opinion issued in a bankruptcy action. If you have significant debt that you cannot pay, you may be eligible for bankruptcy relief, and it is prudent to speak with a California bankruptcy lawyer.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the debtor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which resulted in an automatic stay preventing creditors from pursuing legal actions against him. The creditor, who owned the property rented by the debtor, filed a motion in bankruptcy court seeking relief from the automatic stay to proceed with an unlawful detainer action in state court. The bankruptcy court granted the creditor’s motion, allowing the state court eviction process to continue.
Continue reading

by

Bankruptcy is an important tool that allows people to regain control of their finances and alleviate overwhelming debt obligations that they are unable to pay. Not all claims are dischargeable in bankruptcy, however. For example, the United States Supreme Court recently held that judgments against non-debtor cannot be discharged. If you are mired in debt, you may be able to seek relief by filing for bankruptcy, and it is smart to confer with a California bankruptcy lawyer.

Factual and Procedural History

It is alleged that the owner-family, known for their ownership of the debtor drug company, significantly influenced the company’s strategy and the development of OxyContin, a drug initially touted as having a low risk of addiction. However, mounting evidence of widespread abuse led to extensive legal battles involving individuals, state governments, and federal agencies suing the debtor. In 2004, the debtor board entered into a sweeping Indemnity Agreement to shield its directors and officers from financial liabilities arising from these lawsuits, providing broad protection even beyond their tenure, albeit with exceptions for bad faith actions. Beginning in 2007, the owner-family preemptively shielded assets in anticipation of personal litigation. By 2019, the debtors faced severe financial strain, prompting the debtor family to resign from the company’s board.

Reportedly, simultaneously, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed criminal and civil charges against the debtor, resulting in a 2020 plea agreement that prioritized DOJ claims in the debtor’s bankruptcy proceedings. The agreement included a $2 billion forfeiture judgment, with $1.775 billion potentially released if certain conditions were met. While the debtors declared bankruptcy in 2019, the owner-family did not, temporarily halting litigation against both parties. The debtor’s estate was valued at approximately $1.8 billion, yet claims against the debtor and the owner-family exceeded $40 trillion. Continue reading

by

In bankruptcy actions, creditors will often seek to recover some or all of the debts they are owed. While they have the right to do so, the Bankruptcy Code prohibits them from recovering the same debt twice. As discussed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a recent case, though, payments and transfers that may seem like double recovery often are not recoveries at all. If you have debt obligations you cannot meet, you may be eligible to file for bankruptcy, and you should speak to a California bankruptcy lawyer.

History of the Case

It is alleged that in February 2018, the defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs for the sale of a warehouse in California for $8 million. The plaintiffs’ company, a California business, transferred a down payment of approximately $2.4 million, with the remaining amount financed through a loan secured by the warehouse. The title of the warehouse was transferred to a special purpose entity created by the plaintiffs. This transaction was later discovered to be part of an extensive Ponzi scheme.

Reportedly, in December 2018, federal authorities raided the plaintiffs’ business operations, uncovering substantial fraud, which led to the plaintiffs and several related entities filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The warehouse, owned by a non-debtor entity, was included in federal forfeiture actions against the plaintiffs’ properties. Despite an attempt by one trustee to enforce an automatic stay against the forfeiture, the sale of the warehouse proceeded, and the loan was repaid from the sale proceeds.

Continue reading

by

People with all-consuming debt will often seek financial relief by filing for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy can help many people regain control of their finances, but if they do not proceed carefully, they may incur additional debt. This was demonstrated in a recent California bankruptcy case in which the court sanctioned debtors for filing an inappropriate pleading. If you have debts you are unable to pay, it is wise to talk to a California bankruptcy lawyer about whether bankruptcy may be right for you.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the petitioner filed an adversary proceeding and was awarded a default judgment against the debtors by the Bankruptcy Court. Over a year later, the debtors filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking relief from the default judgment. Their motion was based on Rule 60(b)(4) (relief from a void judgment) and Rule 60(b)(1) (relief from judgment due to mistake).

Allegedly, in response, the petitioner moved for sanctions under. The Bankruptcy Court denied the debtors’ motion to vacate and granted the petitioner’s motion for sanctions. The Bankruptcy Appellant Panel affirmed the decision. The debtors, representing themselves, appealed.

Continue reading

by
Businesses grappling with debts they are unable to pay can often seek relief via bankruptcy. The United States Bankruptcy Code sets forth the requirements and relief available for debtors under various chapters. Many businesses choose to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy actions, as it allows them to maintain operations and assets. In some instances, though, the court will convert a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case to a Chapter 7 case despite the debtor’s protests. In a recent California opinion issued in a bankruptcy matter, the court discussed the grounds for entering and vacating a conversion order. If you need assistance seeking bankruptcy relief, it is advisable to speak with a California bankruptcy lawyer as soon as you can.

Procedural History of the Case and Factual Setting

It is alleged that the debtor filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy action. The bankruptcy court subsequently entered a Conversion Order, which converted the case from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 bankruptcy. At the hearing on the matter, the debtor contends that it was not provided with sufficient notice of the hearing on the motion to convert and that it was not timely served with notice of the motion.
Continue reading
Contact Information
428 J Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 361-6028



We are a Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Code. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Matthew D. Roy
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design