In Re: Mac Truong
Filing
11
OPINION & ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Judge Glenn's March 21, 2013 order is affirmed. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and to refuse all future filings by Truong, in this or in any future lawsuit, unless accompanied by a C ourt order granting Truong permission to so file. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Orderwould not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 11/25/2013) (djc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
:
MAC TRUONG,
:
:
Appellant,
:
:
-v:
:
JEFFREY L. SAPIR,
:
:
Appellee.
:
:
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
13 Civ. 2771 (PAE)
OPINION & ORDER
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
Mac Truong (“Truong”) appeals an order entered by Judge Martin Glenn of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (“Bankruptcy Court”). See In re
Mac Truong, No. 09-11047, Dkt. 59. The order, issued on March 21, 2013, denied Truong’s
request for leave to file additional motions in his case for two reasons: (1) the case was closed
on September 3, 2009; and (2) the court had prohibited Truong from filing any additional
pleadings in the closed case. Id. For the following reasons, Judge Glenn’s March 21, 2013 order
is affirmed.
I.
Background
On March 9, 2009, Truong filed a chapter 13 petition before Judge Glenn. Id. at Dkt. 1.
On September 3, 2009, Judge Glenn dismissed Truong’s chapter 13 case, holding that it was: (1)
filed in bad faith; and (2) a violation of the “single-estate” rule, as Truong’s chapter 7 case before
Judge Novalyn L. Winfield was pending in the United States District Court from the District of
New Jersey. See In re Mac Truong, No. 09-11047, 2009 WL 2929261 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3,
2009). In his decision, Judge Glenn thoroughly described Truong’s lamentable history of filing
frivolous, misleading, and vexatious lawsuits in federal and state court. Id. at *2–*4. On the
basis of that history, Judge Glenn, in addition to dismissing the case, issued an injunction against
Truong “from filing any petition, motion, or pleading in this court without this Court’s prior
approval, for a period of five years from the entry of this Order.” In re Mac Truong, No. 0911047, Dkt. 37. Judge Glenn explained that, although he had “never before considered barring
any individual from seeking the protections of the Bankruptcy Code in the future,” the fact that
he had “never seen misconduct as egregious as that of Mac Truong” led him to take this
extraordinary step. 2009 WL 292926, at *1.
On April 14, 2010, Truong’s appeal of Judge Glenn’s September 3, 2009 opinion was
dismissed due to Truong’s failure to file a brief or request an extension. Truong v. Sapir, No. 09
Civ. 8857 (RWS), 2010 WL 1645123 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2010).
On June 1, 2011, Truong filed another motion before Judge Glenn, styled as a “Request
for Leave to File Motion pursuant to this Court’s September 3, 2009 Injunction Order Limiting
Filing and/or this Court’s February 14, 2008 Filing Injunction.” In re Mac Truong, No. 0911047, Dkt. 46. Because Truong was seeking the same relief as in his dismissed chapter 13 case,
Judge Glenn treated this as a motion to reopen that case. And on July 15, 2011, Judge Glenn
issued another detailed opinion denying Truong’s motion. In re Truong, No. 09-11047, 2011
WL 2894580 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2011).
Truong appealed this decision to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York. On October 26, 2011, Judge Oetken affirmed Judge Glenn’s July 15, 2011
decision, stating that “Truong’s submissions in this appeal provide no basis whatsoever for
questioning the decision of the bankruptcy court.” In re Mac Truong, No. 11 Civ. 6556 (JPO),
Dkt. 6. Noting “Truong’s history of harassing and frivolous litigation in this and other courts,”
2
Judge Oetken directed the Clerk of Court to “refuse all future filings by Truong, in this or in any
future lawsuit, unless accompanied by a Court Order granting Truong permission to so file.” Id.
at 2.
Since then, Judge Glenn has had to issue two more orders against Truong in this matter.
On July 18, 2012, he denied Truong’s request for an order to the effect that the trustees in his
bankruptcy case violated the Court’s September 3, 2009 order; Judge Glenn reiterated that “a
filing of any additional pleadings by the Debtor Mac Truong, his wife and any entity acting on
their behalf is prohibited.” In re Mac Truong, No. 09-11047, Dkt. 56. On March 21, 2013,
Judge Glenn issued another order denying Truong’s request to file additional motions in his
closed chapter 13 case.
On April 25, 2013, Truong appealed Judge Glenn’s March 21, 2013 order. Dkt. 1. On
April 29, 2013, Truong submitted an application for leave to file an appeal, Dkt. 3, which this
Court granted, Dkt. 4.1 On June 6, 2013, Truong submitted a brief. Dkt. 6. On June 20, 2013,
the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee, Jeffrey L. Sapir, responded. Dkt. 7. On July 1, 2013, Truong
replied. Dkt. 9.
II.
Discussion
The only issue before this Court is whether Judge Glenn was correct in entering his
March 21, 2013 order denying Truong leave to file additional motions in his closed chapter 13
case, In re Mac Truong, No. 09-11047.
1
The Court has determined that its decision to grant Truong leave to file an appeal was
erroneous. In so ruling, the Court inadvertently cited to a separate case, before Judge Batts,
which had also barred Truong from further filings in this District. The Court should have cited
to Judge Oetken’s opinion, discussed supra, which barred future filings in this matter.
3
District courts are vested with appellate jurisdiction over bankruptcy court rulings
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) (“[D]istrict courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to
hear appeals . . . from final judgments, orders, and decrees; . . . [and,] with leave of the court,
from other interlocutory orders and decrees . . . of bankruptcy judges.”). On appeal, the court
“may affirm, modify, or reverse a bankruptcy judge’s judgment, order, or decree or remand with
instructions for further proceedings.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013. “Findings of fact, whether based
on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous . . . .” Id.; see
also Solow v. Kalikow (In re Kalikow), 602 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[f]indings of fact are
reviewed for clear error”). A bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions are, however, reviewed de
novo. See In re Kalikow, 602 F.3d at 91; In re Quigley Co., 449 B.R. 196, 200–01 (S.D.N.Y.
2011) (citing In re Bayshore Wire Prods. Corp., 209 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir.2000)).
Having reviewed Judge Glenn’s March 21, 2013 order de novo, the Court affirms.
Truong’s chapter 13 case was dismissed on September 3, 2009. His motion to reopen that case
was denied on July 15, 2011. The district court affirmed that denial on October 26, 2011.
Truong’s case was closed for good reason by Judge Glenn. And, for the reasons canvassed by
Judge Glenn, Truong’s repeated efforts to file motions in his long-closed case reflect bad faith.2
The Court will not tolerate any further attempts by Truong to file motions in a case that has been
closed for more than four years.
2
On August 22, 2013, Judge Batts held that Truong violated Rule 11(b) in a different case and
imposed $10,000 in sanctions. See Mac Truong v. Hung Thi Nguyen, No. 10 Civ. 386 (DAB),
2013 WL 4505190 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2013).
4
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Glenn's March 21, 2013 order is affirmed. The Clerk of
Court is directed to close this case and to refuse all future filings by Truong, in this or in any
future lawsuit, unless accompanied by a Court order granting Truong permissionto so file.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19l5(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order
would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose
of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
p~~~lmaW
United States District Judge
Dated: November 25, 2013
New York, New York
5
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?