Smith v. City of Stockton, et al

Filing 60

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 7/13/2012 ORDERING This action is STAYED against Defendant City of Stockton so long as the automatic stay is in place; and each of the non-bankrupt parties are directed to file a brief, not to exceed 10 pages in length, within 10 days of the date this Order is electronically filed, that addresses whether the Court can or should proceed without the City and, if so, how. In the absence of compelling argument to the contrary, the Court is inclined to stay the entire action so long as the bankruptcy stay is in place.(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

DIONNE SMITH-DOWNS,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
v.

14
15
16

NO. 2:10-CV-02495-MCE-GGH

ORDER

CITY OF STOCKTON,
et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

----oo0oo----

19

Currently before the Court is Defendants’, Steve Moore

20

(“Sheriff Moore”) and John Nesbitt (“Deputy Nesbitt”), Motion to

21

Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 53) (“MTD”).

22

However, after the Motion was filed, Defendant City of Stockton

23

(“the City”) filed a “Notice of Bankruptcy” in which it advised

24

the Court that the City had filed a bankruptcy petition pursuant

25

to Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and invoked the

26

automatic stay prescribed in 11 U.S.C. §§ 362 and 922.

27

59.)

28

///
1

(ECF No.

1

In the Notice of Bankruptcy, the City asserts that the

2

automatic stay applies to the continuation of any judicial

3

proceedings against it that arose before the commencement of the

4

bankruptcy case.

5

stays this proceeding as to the City.

6

(Id. at 2.)

The Court agrees and therefore

Generally, “in the absence of special circumstances,” a stay

7

under 11 U.S.C. § 362 stays actions only against the debtor.

See

8

Ingersoll-Rand Fin. Corp. v. Miller Mining Co., 817 F.2d 1424,

9

1427 (9th Cir. 1987).

Multiple claim and multiple party

10

litigation must be disaggregated so that particular claims,

11

counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party claims are treated

12

independently when determining which of their respective

13

proceedings are subject to the bankruptcy stay.

14

v. Bain, 68 F.3d 1131, 1137 (9th Cir. 1995).

15

See Parker

However, here it is not clear whether this case can or

16

should proceed absent the City of Stockton.

17

of the individual Stockton police officers are sued in both their

18

official and individual capacities, so it is unclear whether the

19

case may proceed against them given the automatic stay.

20

addition, Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint does not make clear

21

which Defendants engaged in which actions, so whether the claims

22

against the County Defendants can be disaggregated from the City

23

Defendants such that the case may proceed is also unclear.

24

Fifth Amended Complaint, ECF No. 52 at ¶¶ 13-23.)

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

For example, several

In

(See

1

In light of the City’s Notice of Bankruptcy and the

2

attendant uncertainty as to whether and how to proceed, the Court

3

therefore orders all the non-bankrupt parties to submit briefs to

4

the Court addressing whether this case may proceed absent the

5

City, and, if so, how.1

6

length and shall be filed within ten days of the date of this

7

Order.

The briefs shall not exceed ten pages in

8
CONCLUSION

9
10
11

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

13

This action is stayed against Defendant City of

Stockton so long as the automatic stay is in place; and

14

2.

Each of the non-bankrupt parties are directed to file a

15

brief, not to exceed ten (10) pages in length, within ten (10)

16

days of the date this Order is electronically filed, that

17

addresses whether the Court can or should proceed without the

18

City and, if so, how.

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24
25
26
27
28

1
For efficiency’s sake, if the individual Defendants and
the County Defendant wish to submit a single joint brief, they
may do so, so long as the brief addresses the effect of the
City’s bankruptcy as to both the individual Defendants and the
County. However, if the Defendants wish to file separate briefs,
they may do so. Plaintiffs must file a single brief in
conformance with this Order.

3

1

In the absence of compelling argument to the contrary, the Court

2

is inclined to stay the entire action so long as the bankruptcy

3

stay is in place.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 13, 2012

6
7
8

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4