Mehrabian Family Trust et al v. Joan F. Weiand Trust et al

Filing 55

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The parties TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on or before September 18, 2015 (1) why the Bankruptcy Court should not resolve the issue whether Plaintiffs claims in this lawsuit were discharged in Weiand Auto motives prior bankruptcy proceedings, and (2) why Plaintiffs claims against Weiand Automotive should not be stayed pending that determination. Any brief filed shall not exceed five pages. Any party that wishes to file a responsive brief may do so no later than September 25, 2015, which shall also not exceed five pages. No hearing will be held. The Court will issue a further order thereafter. (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

MEHRABIAN FAMILY TRUST; CA

12

Case 2:15-cv-02105- ODW (AGRx)

AUTO MART GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

15

JOAN F. WEIAND TRUST; JOAN F.

16

WEIAND; WEIAND AUTOMOTIVE

17

INDUSTRIES, INC.,

18

Defendants.

19

On August 20, 2015, Defendant Weiand Automotive Industries, Inc. filed an

20

Order from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denying without

21

prejudice its motion to reopen its bankruptcy proceedings for the purpose of

22

determining whether or not Plaintiffs’ claims in this lawsuit were discharged. (Reply,

23

Req. for Jud. Notice, Ex. A, ECF No. 49-1.) The Bankruptcy Court found that

24

Weiand Automotive would not be prejudiced if the case were not reopened for that

25

purpose because this Court was an adequate alternate forum in which to decide the

26

issue. (Id.) However, the court denied the motion without prejudice to renewing the

27

motion “should the California District Court prefer that [the Bankruptcy Court]

28

determine the issues raised in the Motion.” (Id.)

1

The Bankruptcy Court would appear to be the more appropriate forum to

2

determine whether or not Plaintiffs’ claims in this lawsuit were discharged by the

3

Bankruptcy Court’s prior discharge Order. This Court recently declined to resolve the

4

issue on a motion to dismiss given that it is a fact-intensive inquiry. (ECF No. 54.)

5

Because the Bankruptcy Court is able to make factual findings, and because that

6

forum is clearly more familiar with other issues in Weiand Automotive’s bankruptcy

7

that might affect the resolution of the matter, it would seem that the Bankruptcy Court

8

could more accurately and expeditiously determine the issue. See, e.g., Matter of

9

Crystal Oil Co., 158 F.3d 291 (5th Cir. 1998).

10

Therefore, the Court ORDERS the parties TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on

11

or before September 18, 2015 (1) why the Bankruptcy Court should not resolve the

12

issue whether Plaintiffs’ claims in this lawsuit were discharged in Weiand

13

Automotive’s prior bankruptcy proceedings, and (2) why Plaintiffs’ claims against

14

Weiand Automotive should not be stayed pending that determination. Any brief filed

15

shall not exceed five pages. Any party that wishes to file a responsive brief may do so

16

no later than September 25, 2015, which shall also not exceed five pages. No hearing

17

will be held. The Court will issue a further order thereafter.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

September 11, 2015

21
22
23

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

2