Robert Kubicek Architects & Associates Incorporated v. Bashas' Incorporated

Filing 12

ORDER AFFIRMING the July 12, 2012 and September 12, 2012 orders of the bankruptcy court. The clerk shall enter final judgment. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 1/9/2013. (KMG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ) ) ) Bashas’ Inc., et al. ) ) Debtors. ) __________________________________) ) Robert Kubicek Architects & Assocs. Inc.,) ) ) Appellant, ) ) vs. ) Bashas’ Inc.; Bashas’ Leaseco Inc.;) ) Sportsman’s LLC, ) ) Appellees. ) ) In re: No. CV-12-2072-PHX-FJM No. BK 09-16050-JMM Adv. No. 12-AP-0226-JMM ORDER 19 20 This is an appeal by Robert Kubicek Architects & Associates, Inc. (“Kubicek”) from 21 orders of the bankruptcy court dated July 13, 2012, In re Bashas’ Inc., No. 09-BK-1605022 JMM, Adv. No. 12-AP-00226-JMM (doc. 28) (“Adv. Proceeding”), and September 12, 2012, 23 Adv. Proceeding (doc. 36). In our order granting Kubicek’s motion to withdraw the 24 reference in a related matter, Robert Kubicek Architects & Assocs. Inc. v. Bashas’ Inc., No. 25 12-CV-1497 (D. Ariz. 2012) (doc. 10), we resolved each of the issues presented in this 26 appeal. Although we expected that Kubicek would withdraw its appeal in light of our ruling, 27 we nevertheless now have before us Kubicek’s opening brief (doc. 8), Bashas’ response brief 28 1 (doc. 9), and Kubicek’s reply brief (doc. 11). 2 In the adversary proceeding, the bankruptcy court granted Bashas’ motion to dismiss, 3 concluding that Kubicek had not filed a proof of claim related to Bashas’ pre-petition 4 conduct, and therefore Kubicek “cannot participate in any distribution of any kind, under 5 Bashas’ confirmed plan of reorganization.” Adv. Proceeding (doc. 28). The bankruptcy 6 court further held that it “is unable to grant Plaintiff any other or ongoing relief,” in other 7 words relief related to post-petition conduct. 8 clarification asking the bankruptcy court to explain whether its order purported to dismiss 9 and discharge Kubicek’s claims related to post-petition conduct. The bankruptcy court 10 denied the motion for clarification explaining that in light of Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 11 2594 (2011), it would not “stray into deciding matters that are outside of its limited 12 jurisdictional power.” Adv. Proceeding (doc. 36). In our order on the motion to withdraw 13 the reference, we construed this statement as the bankruptcy court’s recognition that it was 14 without jurisdiction to consider Kubicek’s post-petition claims. 12-CV-1497 (doc. 10 at 2). 15 The bankruptcy court could not have dismissed claims that were beyond its jurisdiction. We 16 therefore concluded that Kubicek’s post-petition claims remain pending. Id. Id. Kubicek then filed a motion for 17 Nevertheless, Kubicek filed this appeal, again seeking clarification of whether the 18 bankruptcy court discharged its post-petition claims. We reiterate our holding that the 19 bankruptcy court did not dismiss claims for damages or for equitable relief related to post- 20 petition conduct. 21 22 23 IT IS ORDERED AFFIRMING the July 12, 2012 and September 12, 2012 orders of the bankruptcy court. The clerk shall enter final judgment. DATED this 9th day of January, 2013. 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?