Berry v. Kior, Inc. et al

Filing 77

ORDER entered: Defendant KiOR, Inc. filed a petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware as Case No. 14-12514 on November 9, 2014. A petition filed under 11 U.S.C. §§ 301, et seq., operates as a stay of a ju dicial proceeding against the debtor that was commenced before the bankruptcy proceeding. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). The claims against KiOR are stayed. The plaintiff may reinstate these claims to the active docket on notice to this court of the discontinuance of the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2), provided the notice is filed within 14 days after the bankruptcy stay is discontinued. No later than November 24, 2014, the parties must file a statement explaining the impact of the stay on the claims against the individual defendants. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MICHAEL BERRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
KIOR, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-02443

ORDER
Defendant KiOR, Inc. filed a petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Delaware as Case No. 14-12514 on November 9, 2014. A petition filed under 11 U.S.C. §§ 301,
et seq., operates as a stay of a judicial proceeding against the debtor that was commenced before the
bankruptcy proceeding. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). The claims against KiOR are stayed. The plaintiff
may reinstate these claims to the active docket on notice to this court of the discontinuance of the
stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2), provided the notice is filed within 14 days after the bankruptcy
stay is discontinued.
While “[s]ection 362 is rarely . . . a valid basis on which to stay actions against non-debtors.”
Arnold v. Garlock, Inc., 278 F.3d 426, 436 (5th Cir. 2001), “an exception to this general rule does
exist, and a bankruptcy court may invoke § 362 to stay proceedings against nonbankrupt codefendants if, for example, “there is such identity between the debtor and the third-party defendant
that the debtor may be said to be the real party defendant and that a judgment against the third-party
defendant will in effect be a judgment or finding against the debtor.” Reliant Energy Services, Inc.
v. Enron Canada Corp., 349 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 2003). No later than November 24, 2014, the
parties must file a statement explaining the impact of the stay on the claims against the individual
defendants.
SIGNED on November 14, 2014, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge