In re Lim

Filing 24

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING APPELLANT'S 20 MOTION FOR A STAY OF BANKRUPTCY COURT'S ORDERS PENDING APPEAL AS MOOT. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
IN RE: CAROLINE BROWN,

No. C 11-3894 CW

5

Debtor.
_______________________________

6

SUM LIM,

ORDER DENYING
APPELLANT'S MOTION
FOR A STAY OF
BANKRUPTCY COURT'S
ORDERS PENDING
APPEAL AS MOOT

4

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
CAROLINE BROWN,
Defendant/Appellee.
________________________________/

12
13

On November 4, 2011, Appellant Sum Lim moved, under Federal

14

Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8005, for a stay pending her appeal

15

of two of the bankruptcy court's orders, which she identifies as

16

the bankruptcy court's "final order" and the discharge order.

17

Appellant indicated that a stay is necessary for her to proceed on

18

appeal because the bankruptcy court's discharge order prohibited

19

Appellee's creditors from continuing a lawsuit.

20

Brown opposed, arguing that the motion should be denied as moot

21

because Appellant may proceed with her appeal without a stay of

22

the bankruptcy court's orders.

23

filed her opening brief.

24

Appellee Caroline

On November 14, 2011, Appellant

In the underlying bankruptcy case, Appellant filed a

25

complaint against Appellee under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A),

26

claiming that Appellee's debt to her was not dischargeable because

27

it was "for money, property or services obtained by false

28

pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud."

The

1

bankruptcy court granted Appellee's motion to dismiss the

2

complaint with leave to amend because Appellant had not alleged

3

the elements of a claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) for fraud.

4

Subsequently, the bankruptcy court dismissed Appellant's first

5

amended complaint with prejudice because she still had not alleged

6

that Appellee had committed fraud.

7

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28

8

U.S. § 158, which provides district courts with jurisdiction to

9

hear appeals from final judgments, orders and decrees of the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

bankruptcy court.

11

Cir. 2008) (Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158, Ninth Circuit has

12

jurisdiction over appeal of judgment of Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

13

affirming bankruptcy court's dismissal of § 523(a)(2)(A)

14

complaint).

15

the bankruptcy court's orders dismissing her § 523 claim.

16

See In re Kimmel, 324 Fed. Appx. 549, *1 (9th

Thus, a stay is not necessary for Appellant to appeal

Appellant also seeks a stay of the bankruptcy court's "final

17

order," which she does not identify.

18

wants to stay it.

19

Nor does she explain why she

Therefore, the Court does not address it.

The motion for a stay pending appeal is denied as moot.

20

(Docket No. 20).

21

14, 2011.

22

5, 2011.

23

service of Appellee's brief.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Appellant filed her opening brief on November

Appellee's answering brief is due on or before December
Appellant's reply brief is due fourteen days after

25
26
27

Dated: 11/22/2011

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

28
2