MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v. Campbell, et al.

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/27/2016 CONTINUING the Motion Hearing on 4 Motion to Remand to 3/2/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MTGLQ Investors, L.P.,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:15-cv-2317 KJM AC (PS)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING

RICHARD CAMPBELL, STEPHANIE
CAMPBELL, STEPHEN HARMON, and
DOES 1-5,
Defendants.

17
18

This is an unlawful detainer case that was originally filed in the Sacramento County

19

Superior Court. Defendant Richard Campbell, proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of Removal in

20

this court, and a request to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 2. Plaintiff has filed a motion

21

to remand this matter back to the Superior Court. ECF No. 4. Defendants have not responded to

22

the motion. The matter was referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21), and ECF

23

No. 7 (Minute Order). The motion came on for hearing on January 27, 2016. Plaintiff was

24

represented at the hearing by counsel, and defendants did not appear.

25

At the hearing, counsel for plaintiff advised the court that “Gulliver Campbell,” who

26

resides at the same address that is the subject of the unlawful detainer action, and who shares a

27

last name with two of the defendants, had filed a petition in bankruptcy court. In light of this,

28

counsel indicated that a continuance of this hearing for 30 days, until plaintiff’s motion for relief
1

1

from the automatic stay could be heard in the bankruptcy court, would be appropriate, citing

2

Zvafler v. Casey, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101457 at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2010) (no Westlaw

3

citation) (“this Court cannot grant the Motion to Remand” because “[d]uring an automatic

4

bankruptcy stay the Court cannot take any action which involves deliberation, discretion, or

5

judicial involvement”) (citing McCarthy, Johnson & Miller v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc. (In re

6

Pettit), 217 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing the “ministerial act” exception to the

7

automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)).

8

The hearing on the motion for relief from the automatic stay is scheduled for February 9,

9

2016. See In re Gulliver Campbell, Bankr. No. 15-29505, ECF No. 19 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Jan. 7,

10

2016). The court at this point expresses no opinion on whether the automatic stay applies to this

11

action, in which “Gulliver Campbell” is not a named party, nor whether a motion to remand for a

12

jurisdictional defect is subject to the automatic stay. Instead, the court will grant plaintiff’s

13

request for a 30-day continuance of this motion. The parties will have an opportunity to address

14

any issues arising from the bankruptcy at the continued hearing, if no relief from the stay has

15

been granted by then.

16

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on this motion

17

is CONTINUED to March 2, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

18

DATED: January 27, 2016

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2