Yan et al v. Fu

Filing 13

ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF BANKRUPTCY COURT AND DENYING MOTION FOR STAY AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/12/11. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2011)

**E-filed 12/12/11**

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9
IN RE DEMAS WAI YAN,

No. C 11-3914 RS

12

Debtor,
___________________________________

Bankruptcy No. 04-33526
Adversary No. 08-3166 TEC

13

DEMAS YAN AND CHEUK-TIN YAN

ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF
BANKRUPTCY COURT AND
DENYING MOTION FOR STAY AS
MOOT

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

14

Appellants,
v.

15
16

TONY FU,, et al.,

17
18

Appellees.
____________________________________/

19
Demas Wai Yan, a licensed attorney, appears in this matter representing both himself and his
20
father, Cheuk-Tin Yan, as appellants. The Yans challenge an order of the Bankruptcy Court
21
requiring them to dismiss three actions they filed in San Francisco Superior Court related to a series
22
of controversies between Demas Yan and Tony Fu that grew out of their involvement in a
23
condominium construction project at 663 Chenery Street in San Francisco between 2001 and 2003.
24

The Yans’ opening brief filed in support of this appeal contains no substantive arguments.1

25
Instead, the Yans refer to and incorporate the briefing submitted by Demas Yan in his appeal in
26
27
1

28

The Yans filed no reply brief, and their time to do so has expired.

dismissed, on grounds that the order challenged therein was an interlocutory order, not appealable as

3

of right. Because both the substance and procedural posture of the order the Yans are challenging in

4

this appeal (an order requiring them to dismiss the state court cases) are materially different than the

5

order in dispute in Case No. 11-2211 (an order merely denying a motion to dismiss an adversary

6

complaint in the bankruptcy proceedings), their reliance on the briefing in Case No. 11-2211 is a

7

poor substitute for addressing the particular issues potentially presented in this case. Their basic

8

contention, however, is that the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to require them to dismiss the

9

state court cases because, (1) Demas Yan’s state court claims arise from alleged wrongdoing by the

10

defendants that occurred post-petition, and therefore the claims are not part of the bankruptcy estate,

11
For the Northern District of California

Case No. 11-2211.2 By separate order issued herewith, the appeal in Case No. 11-2211 is being

2

United States District Court

1

and (2) Cheuk-Tin Yan’s state court claims are not part of the bankruptcy estate in any event.
The Yans have failed to establish any error in the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling. Demas Yan

12
13

acknowledges that his state court complaints include allegations of pre-petition wrongdoing.

14

Although he argues that the complaints also contain allegations of separately-actionable post-

15

petition conduct, his mere characterizations of the complaints are not controlling and are

16

unpersuasive. Notably, in the context of ruling on the closely related question of whether a cross-

17

complaint Demas Yan had filed against Tony Fu in a proceeding removed to bankruptcy court

18

stated any post-petition claims, the Bankruptcy Court expressly gave Demas Yan leave to amend,

19

for the purpose of stating facts to show more clearly that any of his claims actually arose from post-

20

petition conduct. Demas Yan declined to provide any amended cross-complaint.3 While that cross-

21

complaint may not have been co-extensive with the state court actions in dispute here, Demas Yan’s

22

failure to amend further supports the conclusion that he is simply unable to articulate any viable

23

post-petition claims against defendants arising from these series of events.4

24
2

25
26
27

Cheuk-Tin Yan is not a party to the appeal in Case No. 11-2211. Demas Yan’s briefing in that
appeal, however, included arguments related to Cheuk-Tin’s alleged rights. While Demas Yan
lacked standing to assert those arguments in Case No 11-2211, it is at least arguably permissible for
Cheuk-Tin Yan to adopt them by reference in this appeal.
3

28

That matter is the subject of a separate appeal still pending in this Court as Case No. 11-1814.

4

The Yans repeatedly assert that the state court complaints in dispute have survived demurrer. At
most, that means that, in the view of the state court, at least some part of the factual allegations in
2

1

Likewise, no error has been shown in the Bankruptcy Court’s conclusion that claims brought

2

nominally on behalf of Cheuk-Tin Yan also are property of the bankruptcy estate. Merely asserting,

3

without a sufficient factual and legal basis to do so, that property belongs to someone other than the

4

debtor, does not suffice. On the record before it, the Bankruptcy Court could properly conclude that

5

both monies alleged to have belonged to Cheuk-Tin Yan and claims relating to those funds were the

6

property of the estate, particularly in light of the other allegations Demas Yan had made regarding

7

the transactions.

8

Accordingly, the Yans have shown no basis for reversal of the bankruptcy court’s order filed

that order and a subsequent enforcement order pending disposition of this appeal is therefore moot,

11
For the Northern District of California

July 26, 2011 requiring them to dismiss the specified state court actions. Their motion for a stay of

10

United States District Court

9

and is denied on that basis.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: 12/12/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

those complaints state a claim. Even if the state court’s rulings were binding on the Bankruptcy
Court, which they are not, it would fail to show that the claims are not the property of the
bankruptcy estate, or that all of the allegations in those complaints represented cognizable claims.
3