Barnes v. Field
Filing
49
ORDER Vacating March 14, 2017 and June 26, 2017 Orders and Remanding The Case To The Bankruptcy Court To Consider Issues On Remand From The Ninth Circuit re: 33 40 . "Because the ruling that Appellant lacked standing to seek a stay of the sale of the Boat was the primary basis for this Courts 3/14/17 Order, this Court concludes that both of the issues identified by the Ninth Circuit are issues the bankruptcy court should address in the first instance. This Court therefore VACAT ES its 3/14/17 Order and its 6/26/17 Order and REMANDS the instant case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. The bankruptcy court is DIRECTED to address the following issues:1) whether Appellant had prudential standing to seek a stay of t he sale of the Boat; 2) if Appellant had prudential standing, whether the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to authorize the sale; and 3) whether to avoid the sale of the Boat. Within seven days after it has issued its written order(s) ruling on t hese issues, the bankruptcy court shall transmit its orders(s) to this Court. This Court will thereafter schedule a status conference to address how the remainder of the instant appeal will proceed." Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 7/23/2018. (cib, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
CIVIL 16-00230 LEK-KSC
In re:
)
)
SEA HAWAII RAFTING, LLC,
)
)
Debtor.
)
_____________________________ )
)
CHAD BARRY BARNES,
)
Appellant,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
DANE S. FIELD, TRUSTEE,
)
)
Appellee.
_____________________________ )
ORDER VACATING MARCH 14, 2017 AND JUNE 26, 2017 ORDERS
AND REMANDING THE CASE TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
TO CONSIDER ISSUES ON REMAND FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT
On May 11, 2016, Appellant Chad Barry Barnes
(“Appellant” or “Barnes”) filed an appeal from the bankruptcy
court’s May 9, 2016 Order Granting Trustee’s Motion for Order
(I) Authorizing Sale of Boat and Trailer Under Bankruptcy Code
§ 363, and (II) Otherwise Granting Relief, Filed on March 29,
2016 (“5/9/16 Bankruptcy Order”).
District Court (dkt. no. 1).1]
[Notice of Transmittal to
On September 27, 2016, Appellee
Dane S. Field, Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Sea Hawai`i
Rafting, LLC (“Trustee” or “Appellee”), filed a Motion to Dismiss
Appeal.
1
[Dkt. no. 14.]
On March 14, 2017, this Court issued an
Appellant filed an Amended Notice of Appeal and Statement
of Election on September 1, 2016. [Transmittal of Document for
Pending Appeal (dkt. no. 12).]
Order Granting Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal (“3/14/17
Order”).
[Dkt. no. 33.2]
The primary basis of the 3/14/17 Order
was the fact that Appellant did not obtain a stay of the 5/9/16
Bankruptcy Order.
See, e.g., 2017 WL 988655, at *3.
The 5/9/16
Bankruptcy Order, inter alia, authorized Appellee to sell the
bankruptcy estate’s interest in a boat named “The Tehani” (“the
Boat”) and its trailer.
Appellant moved to stay the sale, but
the bankruptcy court denied the motion on the ground that
Appellant lacked standing to seek a stay.
Id. at *1.
On March 31, 2017, Appellant filed a motion for
reconsideration of the 3/14/17 Order and an errata to the motion
for reconsideration.
[Dkt. nos. 34, 35.]
On June 26, 2017, this
Court issued an Order Denying Motion to Reconsider Order Granting
Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal (“6/26/17 Order”), and the
Clerk’s Office entered the Judgment in a Civil Case.
nos. 40,3 41.]
[Dkt.
On June 30, 2017, Appellant filed his Notice of
Appeal Without Prepayment of Fees.
[Dkt. no. 42.]
On July 16, 2018, the Ninth Circuit vacated this
Court’s orders and remanded the case to this Court for
reconsideration in light of Barnes v. Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC,
889 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 2018), which reversed and remanded an
2
The 3/14/17 Order is also available at 2017 WL 988655.
3
The 6/26/17 Order is also available at 2017 WL 2818197.
2
order in CV 13-00002 ACK-RLP.4
[Order (dkt. no. 47).5]
The
Ninth Circuit has directed this Court to “determine whether
Barnes has prudential standing to pursue this appeal.”
1.]
[Id. at
It also stated that either this Court or the bankruptcy
court “should determine whether the bankruptcy court lacked
jurisdiction to authorize the sale, and whether the sale can and
should be avoided.”
[Id. at 2 (citation omitted).]
Because the ruling that Appellant lacked standing to
seek a stay of the sale of the Boat was the primary basis for
this Court’s 3/14/17 Order, this Court concludes that both of the
issues identified by the Ninth Circuit are issues the bankruptcy
court should address in the first instance.
This Court therefore
VACATES its 3/14/17 Order and its 6/26/17 Order and REMANDS the
instant case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.
The bankruptcy court is DIRECTED to address the following issues:
1) whether Appellant had prudential standing to seek a stay of
the sale of the Boat; 2) if Appellant had prudential standing,
whether the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to authorize the
sale; and 3) whether to avoid the sale of the Boat.
4
The order at issue in the CV 13-00002 appeal dismissed
Barnes’s in rem claims against the Boat for lack of jurisdiction.
[CV 13-00002, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Pltf.’s
Motion for Summary Judgment as to Unseaworthiness, Negligence Per
Se, and Jones Act Negligence, and Dismissing Def. M/V Tehani for
Lack of Jurisdiction, filed 12/22/15 (dkt. no. 197).]
5
2018.
The Ninth Circuit also issued its Mandate on July 16,
[Dkt. no. 48.]
3
Within seven days after it has issued its written
order(s) ruling on these issues, the bankruptcy court shall
transmit its orders(s) to this Court.
This Court will thereafter
schedule a status conference to address how the remainder of the
instant appeal will proceed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, July 23, 2018.
/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
IN RE: SEA HAWAII RAFTING, LLC; CHAD BARRY BARNES VS. DANE S.
FIELD; CIVIL 16-00230 LEK-KSC; ORDER VACATING MARCH 14, 2007 AND
JUNE 26, 2017 ORDERS AND REMANDING THE CASE TO THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT TO CONSIDER ISSUES ON REMAND FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?