Snyder et al v. Julian

Filing 119

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 106 MOTION to Strike 105 Suggestion of Filing Bankruptcy filed by Plaintiff Estate of Zachary Snyder motion is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lewis M. Blanton on 10/2/13. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
THE ESTATE OF ZACHARY SNYDER, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
STEVEN JULIAN,
)
)
Defendant.
)

No. 1:11CV24 LMB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently pending before the court is plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike. (Doc. No. 106).
Defendant has field a Response in Opposition to plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike. (Doc. No. 114).
On August 15, 2012, a jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant on plaintiffs’ § 1983
claim, and in favor of plaintiffs on plaintiffs’ state wrongful death claim. The jury awarded a total
of $1,000.000.00 in damages. On August 8, 2013, the court entered an amended judgment
apportioning the balance of the damages awarded by the jury among the plaintiffs.
(Doc. No. 111).
On July 30, 2013, Defendant Steven Julian filed a Discharge of Debtor in United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Case Number 13-10407, listing Steven
Randall Julian as a Debtor. (Doc. No. 105).
On July 31, 2013, plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike the Discharge of Debtor filed on July
30, 2013. (Doc. No. 106). Plaintiffs argue that the debt evidenced by the Judgment in this matter
has not been discharged, as there is a pending Adversarial Complaint in bankruptcy court.
Plaintiffs contend that, because the Discharge of Debtor filed on July 30, 2013 in this action does
not accurately reflect the current stance of the bankruptcy proceedings, the court should strike the

document from the record.
In his Response, defendant argues that the decision whether to except the judgment in the
instant case from discharge belongs to the Bankruptcy Court. Defendant further argues that,
should this court decide to rule on the dischargeability issue, the court should uphold the
discharge of the Bankruptcy Court because plaintiffs cannot demonstrate the elements required
for exception.
The bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising under Title 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a). This court declines to rule on the dischargeability of
the judgment in the instant case, as this matter is properly pending before the Bankruptcy Court.
The court further finds that the Discharge of Debtor filed by Defendant Julian served the
limited function of providing notice to the parties and the court of Defendant Julian’s bankruptcy
case, and did not prejudice plaintiffs in any way. For these reasons, the court declines to strike
the Discharge of Debtor document filed by Defendant Julian in this case.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 106) be and it is
denied.
Dated this 2nd

day of October, 2013.

LEWIS. M. BLANTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-