Velasquez v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston et al

Filing 21

ORDER Administratively Closing Case. ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Stay Case and Vacate All Pre-Trial deadlines and Conference Dates Due to Recent Reopening of Plaintiff's Bankruptcy Case 20 is DENIED. ORDERED that this case shall be administratively closed, subject to reopening for good cause, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2. If, by November 2, 2015, no motion to reopen the case is filed, plaintiff shall file a status report regarding the bankruptcy proceedings. Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 07/16/15. (jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03075-PAB-CBS
KATHIE VELASQUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON,
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION (d/b/a “USAA”),
USAA COMPREHENSIVE WELFARE BENEFITS PLAN,
USAA SHORT-TERM DISABILITY BENEFIT PLAN, and
USAA LONG-TERM DISABILITY BENEFIT PLAN,
Defendants.

ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

This matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Stay Case and
Vacate All Pre-Trial Deadlines and Conference Dates Due to Recent Reopening of
Plaintiff’s Bankruptcy Case [Docket No. 20] filed by plaintiff Kathie Velasquez.
On November 13, 2014, plaintiff filed this case. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff brings
claims against defendants for recovery of past due disability benefits. Id. at 11-14.
Plaintiff asserts that she and her husband filed for bankruptcy in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado and that, on September 8, 2014, the
bankruptcy was discharged. Docket No. 20 at 2. However, plaintiff’s bankruptcy
attorney did not disclose plaintiff’s claims for disability benefits as assets of her estate.
On plaintiff’s motion, the bankruptcy court reopened plaintiff’s bankruptcy case. Docket
No. 20-1. Plaintiff asserts that, before this case can proceed, the bankruptcy trustee

must determine whether the potential recovery in this case is the property of plaintiff’s
bankruptcy estate. Docket No. 20 at 2. Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that he has ceased
all activity in this case pending the bankruptcy trustee’s determination. As a result,
plaintiff seeks to stay this case until all issues related to plaintiff’s bankruptcy case are
resolved, but plaintiff’s motion does not indicate when this may occur. Plaintiff
represents that defendants agree that “this litigation should be stayed until the
bankruptcy issues are resolved or until it is determined whether Plaintiff or the trustee
will proceed forward.” Id. at 3.
A scheduling order has been entered in this case. Discovery is due by August 3,
2015 and the dispositive motion deadline is September 1, 2015, but there are no
motions pending. The Court agrees that this case should not proceed further until the
bankruptcy trustee has evaluated plaintiff’s claims, but, under the circumstances, the
Court is not inclined to grant a stay of indefinite duration. Thus, based upon the
reasons stated in plaintiff’s motion and the current procedural posture of the case, the
Court finds that good cause exists to administratively close this case pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR. 41.2. See Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio LLC, 166 F.3d 389, 392
(1st Cir. 1999) (noting that “an administrative closing has no effect other than to remove
a case from the court’s active docket and . . . d[oes] not terminate the underlying case,
but, rather, place[s] it in inactive status until such time as the judge, in his discretion or
at the request of a party, cho[o]se[s] either to reactivate it or to dispose of it with
finality”). Any party may file a motion to reopen this case upon the bankruptcy trustee’s
determination regarding plaintiff’s claims or for any other reason constituting good
cause. See D.C.COLO.LCivR. 41.2.
2

It is therefore
ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Stay Case and Vacate All Pre-Trial
Deadlines and Conference Dates Due to Recent Reopening of Plaintiff’s Bankruptcy
Case [Docket No. 20] is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that this case shall be administratively closed, subject to reopening
for good cause, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2. If, by November 2, 2015, no
motion to reopen the case is filed, plaintiff shall file a status report regarding the
bankruptcy proceedings.

DATED July 16, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

3