Pro Se Services Inc et al v. A&A Auto Wrecking LLC et al
ORDER denying 5 Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/24/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
PRO SE SERVICES, et al.,
Case No. 3:13-cv-00244-MMD-VPC
A&A AUTO WRECKING, LLC,
(Appellant’s Emergency Motion for Stay
Pending Appeal – dkt. no. 5)
Before the Court is Appellants Pro Se Services, Inc., Steve Espinoza, and Maria
Espinoza’s (collectively “Pro Se”) Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. (See dkt.
no. 5.) Based on the reasoning set forth below, the Motion is denied.
Pro Se appeals from the Bankruptcy Court’s Order Authorizing Debtor to Sell
Personal Property Free and Clear of Liens and Encumbrances. In re A&A Auto
Wrecking, LLC, No. 12-50686-btb (Bankr. D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2013), ECF No. 295. The
Notice of Appeal was filed on May 7, 2013, and the case brought before this Court on
May 8, 2013. In re A&A Auto Wrecking, LLC, ECF No. 299; (see dkt. no. 1). On May
20, and subsequent to the Notice’s filing, Pro Se filed in the Bankruptcy Court its Motion
for Stay Pending Appeal seeking to stay the transfer of a disputed truck which was
ordered sold by the Bankruptcy Court’s order. In re A&A Auto Wrecking, LLC, ECF No.
seeking the same relief it asked for in its Motion for Stay. (See dkt. no. 5.) On May 23,
2013, Pro Se filed a Notice of Hearing informing Appellee A&A Auto Wrecking, LLC that
A day later, Pro Se brought the instant Emergency Motion before this Court
the hearing on the Motion for Stay before the Bankruptcy Court is scheduled for June 26,
2013. In re A&A Auto Wrecking, LLC, ECF No. 319.
After reviewing the parties’ filings and the record below, the Court declines to
entertain Pro Se’s Emergency Motion. Pro Se has failed to demonstrate any reason not
to let the Bankruptcy Court hear and decide the Motion for Stay. "Motions for stay
pending appeal or for other relief pending appeal must ordinarily be presented to the
bankruptcy court in the first instance, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8005, before the movant may
seek relief from the BAP or the district court, as the case may be." In re Ho, 265 B.R.
603, 604 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001). “A motion for such relief, or for modification or
termination of relief granted by a bankruptcy judge, may be made to the district court or
the bankruptcy appellate panel, but the motion shall show why the relief, modification, or
termination was not obtained from the bankruptcy judge.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8005. Here,
Pro Se does not provide sufficient cause as to why the Bankruptcy Court should not
have the opportunity to decide the Motion, particularly when it is best poised to evaluate
the merits of the disagreement concerning the disputed property. Further, it is not clear
whether the Debtor has the authority to transfer the disputed property before the
Bankruptcy Court concludes its June 26, 2013 hearing.
provide sufficient reason to deviate from ordinary procedure mandated in Rule 8005.
Pro Se has thus failed to
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s Emergency Motion for
Stay Pending Appeal (dkt. no. 5) is DENIED.
DATED THIS 24th day of May 2013.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?