UL LLC v. Sturgeon Services International, Inc. et al
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/4/17 ORDERING that the instant action is STAYED only as to the cross-complaint against Rynders filed by Defendants Surgeon Services International, Inc. and Engineered Well Services International, Inc. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California
corporation, ENGINEERED WELL
SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
California corporation, JOHN POWELL,
an individual, AND DOES 1-20,
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS
Plaintiff UL LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action on September 19, 2016, against
Defendants Sturgeon Services International, Inc., Engineered Well Services International, Inc.,
and John Powell (jointly “Defendants”). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On November 14, 2016,
Defendants Sturgeon Services International, Inc. and Engineered Well Services International, Inc.
initiated a third-party complaint for indemnity and contribution against Rebecca Rynders aka
Rebecca Shiyin Zhu. (See ECF No. 12.) Rebecca Rynders filed a Notice of Bankruptcy
Proceeding on December 22, 2016, seeking a stay of the instant action pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
362. (ECF No. 28 at 2.) Plaintiff filed a response to Rynders’ notice on December 29, 2016.
(ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff asserts that only the third-party cross-complaint filed against Rynders
may be stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362 and cites Ingersoll-Rand Financial Corp. v. Miller Mining
Co., Inc., 817 F. 2d 1424 (9th Cir. 1987), in support of this argument. (ECF No. 29 at 2.)
In Ingersoll-Rand, the Ninth Circuit held that “[i]n the absence of special circumstances,
stays pursuant to section 362(a) are limited to debtors and do not include non-bankrupt co-
defendants.” Id. at 1427. Plaintiff argues this reasoning should extend to Defendants in the
instant matter who claim indemnity by Rynders. (ECF No. 29 at2.) The Court agrees. The
parties do not assert, and the Court cannot find, any special circumstances that would permit the
Court to extend the automatic stay to the entire proceeding, including claims Rynders is not a
party to and the original complaint between Plaintiff and Defendants. While Rynders may be
responsible for the indemnification of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants, Defendants may
assert their claim in the Bankruptcy action as an unsecured-claim after a judgment is entered in
the instant action. See In re All Seasons Resorts, Inc., 79 B.R. 901, 904 (C.D. Cal. 1987) (finding
that no threat of harm to reorganization plans existed where the party may pay the full amount of
his claim and seek indemnification from debtor at a later date). Furthermore, Rynders has not
presented the Court with evidence that the Bankruptcy Court extended the automatic stay to non-
debtors in the instant action. See Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Stiles, 700 F. Supp. 1060,
1062–63 (D. Mont. 1988) (finding 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) does not extend the automatic stay to no-
debtors where the bankruptcy court did not issue an order extending the stay). Accordingly, the
instant action is STAYED only as to the cross-complaint against Rynders filed by Defendants
Surgeon Services International, Inc. and Engineered Well Services International, Inc.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 4, 2017
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
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?