Whitney v. Pacific Thomas Corporation et al

Filing 38

ORDER AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY COURT'S ORDER OF NOVEMBER 14, 2014. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 25, 2016. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

In re

No. C-14-5325 MMC

12

PACIFIC THOMAS CORPORATION, dba
PACIFIC THOMAS CAPITAL, dba SAFE
STORAGE,

Bankruptcy Case No. 14-54232 MEH

13

ORDER AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY
COURT’S ORDER OF NOVEMBER 14,
2014

Debtor

14

/

15
16
17

Before the Court is appellant Randall Whitney’s appeal from the bankruptcy court’s

18

“Order Re Violation of the Automatic Stay,” filed November 14, 2014, by which the

19

bankruptcy court (1) found appellant violated the automatic stay provisions of the

20

Bankruptcy Code when he recorded four lis pendens in the Alameda County Recorder’s

21

Office and (2) directed appellant to expunge the four lis pendens. Having reviewed the

22

respective briefs filed by the parties, the Court rules as follows.
1. The Court finds it has jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See In re Pizza of

23
24

Hawaii, Inc., 761 F.2d 1374, 1377 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding “federal court must determine

25

sua sponte its proper jurisdiction”).
First, although the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, as it did not resolve all

26
27

claims asserted in the application filed by appellee Kyle Everett in the bankruptcy court

28

//

1

(see Appl., filed November 10, 2014),1 the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), will

2

exercise its discretion to hear the matter, given the challenged order “resolve[s] the vast

3

majority of the dispute between the parties” with respect to the claims set forth in appellee’s

4

application of November 10, 2014 and is, in substance, a “mandatory injunction.” See First

5

Owners’ Ass’n v. Gordon Properties, LLC, 470 B.R. 364, 371-72 (E.D. Va. 2012) (setting

6

forth circumstances under which district court may properly exercise discretion to hear

7

appeal from interlocutory order).

8
9

Second, contrary to appellee’s argument, although the subject real property has
been sold by appellee to a third party, the sale neither moots the instant appeal nor

10

deprives appellant of standing to challenge the bankruptcy court’s order, as the underlying

11

state court action remains pending,2 and a ruling by this Court in favor of appellant would

12

reinstate the four lis pendens. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 405.24.

13

2. The bankruptcy court did not err in finding appellant’s recordation of the four lis

14

pendens constituted an act in violation of the automatic stay. The Bankruptcy Code

15

precludes “any act . . . to exercise control over property of the estate.” See 11 U.S.C.

16

§ 362(a)(3). By recording a lis pendens, the recording party necessarily asserts he has

17

filed a state court action that “would, if meritorious, affect . . . title to, or the right to

18

possession of, [the subject] real property,” see Kirkeby v. Superior Court, 33 Cal. 4th 642,

19

647 (internal quotation and citation omitted), thus preventing “a buyer of the real property

20

from claiming bona fide purchaser status with respect to the asserted claim,” see In re

21

Brooks-Hamilton, 348 B.R. 512, 525 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2006). Where, as here, the subject

22

real property is the property of a bankruptcy estate, recordation of a lis pendens “interferes

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

In his application, appellee, in addition to seeking the relief granted by the
bankruptcy court in the order that is the subject of the instant appeal, sought an order
finding appellant to be in contempt of court, as well as imposition of monetary sanctions.
(See Application, filed November 10, 2014, at 8-9.) The additional relief sought by
appellant was addressed by the bankruptcy court in a separate order, filed January 29,
2015.
2

According to appellee, the state court stayed the underlying action. To the extent
appellee argues the state court action lacks merit and/or is moot, and thus is subject to
dismissal, such argument is not appropriately directed to this Court.
2

1

with a bankruptcy trustee’s attempt to sell the real property,” given that such recordation

2

“creates a cloud on title,” and, consequently, is an act that “qualifies as the exercise of

3

control over the real property.” See id.

4

3. Appellant has failed to show that the bankruptcy court, after finding the

5

recordation of the four lis pendens constituted a violation of the automatic stay, erred by

6

directing appellant to expunge them. First, issuance of such an injunction was proper,

7

given that “violations of the automatic stay are void”; in order words, appellant had no right

8

to record the four lis pendens even if appellant had not challenged the act. See In re

9

Schwartz, 954 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting acts in violation of automatic stay “are

10

void without the need for direct challenge”). Second, appellant has failed to show he was

11

prejudiced by the bankruptcy court’s decision to hear the matter on shortened time, as

12

appellant was afforded and availed himself of the opportunity to file opposition prior to the

13

hearing and to present oral argument at the hearing, and does not contend there was any

14

argument he was unable to make or evidence he was unable to present under the schedule

15

set by the bankruptcy court.

16

CONCLUSION

17

For the reasons stated above, the bankruptcy court’s Order Re Violation of the

18
19

Automatic Stay is hereby AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: February 25, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3