Smith v. City of Stockton et al

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 5/5/15 REFERRING 9 Motion to Dismiss as to City of Stockton and Eric Jones to the bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. §157(a), and the motion scheduled for hearing before this district judge on 5/11/15 is deemed WITHDRAWN. (cc: USBC, Judge Klein). (Meuleman, A) Modified on 5/6/2015 (Meuleman, A).

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

NATHANIEL SMITH,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-CV-00363-GEB-AC

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF STOCKTON; OFFICER
MAYER, OFFICER ROBIN
HARRISON, OFFICER MICHAEL
PEREZ, AND FORMER CHIEF OF
POLICE BLAIR ULRING, in their
individual capacities; and
CHIEF OF POLICE ERIC JONES,
in his official capacity,

ORDER REFERRING THE DISMISSAL
MOTION FILED BY CITY OF STOCKTON
AND CHIEF OF POLICE ERIC JONES
TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff filed a Complaint in district court alleging

19

federal and state law claims concerning his arrest on February

20

13, 2013. Defendants City of Stockton (“the City”) and Chief of

21

Police

22

dismissal of each claim contending the claims are barred since

23

Plaintiff did not file a Proof of Claim in the City’s bankruptcy

24

proceedings. Specifically, Defendants contend:

25
26
27
28

Eric

Jones

(“Jones”)

(collectively

“Defendants”)

[The City] filed a Chapter 9 case in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of California. (Case No.
2012-23118). According to Section II.D. of
the Amended Plan of Adjustment [(“the Plan”)]
(page 32), all proofs of claim for Postpetition claims that arise prior to August
1

seek

1

16, 2013 must have been filed by August 16,
2013, in order to be considered timely. . . .
The terms of the Plan are binding on all
creditors, including Plaintiff. The Plan
provides
(on
page
49)
that
upon
the
“Effective Date,” the City is discharged from
all its debts other than those excepted from
the discharge Plan or by statute. . . .
Plaintiff in this case did not file a Proof
of Claim with the [B]ankruptcy [C]ourt]. As
such, . . . Plaintiff [is barred] from
recovering anything on [his] claims against
[the City]. . . Additionally, [Plaintiff is
barred] . . . from recovering anything on
[his] claims against [Jones] since he is
being sued in his official capacity as Chief
of
Police
for
the
Stockton
Police
Department.”

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

(Defs.’City of Stockton and Chief of Police Eric Jones’ Not. of

12

Mot. & Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”) 2:2-22, ECF No.9.)
Defendants’

13

dismissal

motion

is

premised

on

14

interpretation of an order or orders issued by the Bankruptcy

15

Court in the City’s chapter 9 bankruptcy proceeding, captioned In

16

re City of Stockton, California, Case No. 2012-32118. Therefore,

17

Defendants’ dismissal motion is referred to the bankruptcy court

18

under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), and the motion scheduled for hearing

19

before this district judge on May 11, 2015 is deemed withdrawn.

20

Dated:

May 5, 2015

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2