Jinka v. Solverline Properties LLC

Filing 6

ORDER Denying 2 Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. The Court ORDERS that Jinka's emergency motion to stay pending appeal, Dkt. No. 2 , is DENIED AS MOOT. In the alternative, the motion is DENIED on the merits. Signed by Judge Jamal N Whitehead. (KRA) (cc: Appellant via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11

JEFFREY WAYNE JINKA, JR.,
Appellant,
v.
SILVERLINE PROPERTIES LLC,
Appellee.

12
13

CASE NO. 2:24-cv-1900-JNW

In re: Jeffrey Wayne Jinka, Jr.,
Debtor.

14

Bankruptcy No. 2:24-12585-TWD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STAY PENDING APPEAL

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

1. INTRODUCTION
Debtor Jeffrey Wayne Jinka, Jr. has appealed an interlocutory order of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington, and he requests a
stay of that order pending appeal. Dkt. No. 2. After considering Jinka’s motion to
stay pending appeal, the record, and the applicable law, the Court DENIES the
motion as moot, or alternatively, on the merits.

23
ORDER - 1

1

2. BACKGROUND

2

On July 19, 2024, Appellee Silverline Properties, LLC 1 purchased Jinka’s

3

home at a foreclosure sale. Bankr. Dkt. No. 12-1 ¶¶ 1, 2, and Ex. 1. Jinka held over

4

at the property, so Silverline began an unlawful detainer action in state court,

5

receiving a writ of restitution. See id. ¶¶ 10–15. At Jinka’s request, the state court

6

temporarily stayed Silverline’s writ and set a rehearing date of October 11, 2024.

7

See id. ¶¶ 19–20.

8

Jinka filed for bankruptcy on October 10, 2024, which automatically stayed

9

Silverline’s state-court, eviction proceedings. See Bankr. Dkt. No. 1;

10

11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(2) (stating that certain bankruptcy petitions “operate[] as a stay,

11

applicable to all entities, of [] . . . any act to obtain possession of property of the

12

estate . . . .”). Silverline promptly moved for relief from the automatic stay so that it

13

could press forward with its state-court case. See Bankr. Dkt. No. 12. Soon after,

14

Jinka moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO). See Bankr. Dkt. No. 22. On

15

November 6, 2024, the Bankruptcy Court granted Silverline’s motion and denied

16

Jinka’s. While Jinka appeals both orders, this matter only addresses his appeal of

17

the order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order, Bankr. Dkt. No. 32.

18

See Dkt. No. 1-2 (9th Cir. BAP Order Regarding Number of Appeals).

19

When he appealed, Jinka moved to stay the Bankruptcy Court’s order

20

granting Silverline relief from the automatic stay pending appeal, but he did not

21
22
23

1 In a related matter, Silverline explains that it “has been docketed as ‘Solverline’, a

typographical error.” In re Jeffrey Wayne Jinka, Jr., 2:24-cv-1895-JNW, Dkt. No. 5
at n.1.
ORDER - 2

1

move to stay the order denying a TRO pending appeal. See Bankr. Dkt. No. 36 and

2

generally. The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion to stay the order granting

3

Silverline relief pending appeal. See Bankr. Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:24-cv-1895-

4

JNW, Dkt. No. 4; Dkt. No. 2. Three days later, on November 18, 2024, the

5

Bankruptcy Court dismissed Jinka’s case for his failure to appear at his 11 U.S.C.

6

§ 341 meeting of creditors. See Bankr. Dkt. No. 55; Local Rules W.D. Wash.

7

Bankr. 1017(e). Jinka has not appealed the dismissal.
Jinka now asks this Court to stay the denial of his motion for a TRO pending

8
9

appeal.
3. DISCUSSION

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

3.1

Jinka’s motion to stay the Bankruptcy Court’s TRO denial pending
appeal is moot.
Jinka’s motion asks the Court to stay the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of his

motion for a TRO—effectively, Jinka asks this Court to grant a TRO reinstating the
automatic stay. While the bankruptcy case was pending, Silverline could only
proceed with its state-court unlawful detainer action by seeking relief from the
automatic stay. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(2) (stating that certain bankruptcy petitions
“operate[] as a stay, applicable to all entities, of [] . . . any act to obtain possession of
property of the estate . . . .”). But when Jinka’s bankruptcy case was dismissed, the
automatic stay resolved on its own under the relevant statute. See
11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(B) (stating that “the stay . . . continues until . . . the time the
case is dismissed”); see also Olive St. Invs. v. Howard Sav. Bank, 972 F.2d 214, 216

23
ORDER - 3

1

(8th Cir. 1992) (holding debtor’s right to automatic stay expires when “the

2

bankruptcy proceeding is dismissed”).

3

In short, an order from this Court staying the Bankruptcy Court’s

4

interlocutory ruling on an automatic stay that has since resolved in a dismissed

5

bankruptcy action would have no effect at all. See In re Ponton, 446 Fed. App’x. 427,

6

429 (3d Cir. 2011) (finding that dismissal of bankruptcy case mooted appeal of

7

interlocutory order granting relief from automatic bankruptcy stay); cf. Cummins v.

8

Solgen Power, Case No. 23-cv-5363-JLR, LLC, 2023 WL 5277689, at *1 (W.D. Wash.

9

Aug. 16, 2023) (Robart, J.) (finding motion to dismiss was moot because it targeted a

10

superseded, non-operative complaint). Accordingly, Jinka’s motion to stay pending

11

appeal is moot.

12
13

3.2

Even if the motion were not moot, it fails on the merits.
Under the Bankruptcy Rules, a debtor usually must move to stay pending

14

appeal in the bankruptcy court before requesting a stay from the reviewing court—

15

the district court in this case. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8007(a)(1)(A); In re Borjesson,

16

Case No. 19-0413-MJP, 2019 WL 1327324 (W.D. Wash. March 25, 2019) (Pechman,

17

J.) (citing In re Rivera, Case No. 5:15-cv-04402-EJD, 2015 WL 6847973, at *2 (N.D.

18

Cal. Nov. 9, 2015) (“A failure to seek emergency relief in the bankruptcy court is a

19

critical defect and not often overlooked.”)). If the bankruptcy court denies the

20

motion, the debtor may file a separate motion to stay pending appeal in the district

21

court. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8007; In re Irwin, 338 B.R. at 844.

22
23
ORDER - 4

Here, Jinka moved to stay the Bankruptcy Court’s order granting Silverline

1
2

relief from the automatic stay pending appeal, which is the subject of a related

3

bankruptcy appeal. See Bankr. Dkt. No. 36; Case No. 2:24-cv-1895-JNW, Dkt. No. 4.

4

Jinka did not move to stay the Bankruptcy Court’s order denying his motion for a

5

TRO, the subject of this appeal. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion on that

6

basis.

7

Further, even if the Court considers his motion for an emergency stay of the

8

TRO denial on the merits, it denies the motion for the same reasons articulated in

9

the related matter. See Case No. 2:24-cv-1895-JNW, Dkt. No. 7.

10

Parties are not entitled to stays pending appeal as a matter of right. Lair v.

11

Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012); Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433

12

(2009); In re Borjesson, 2019 WL 1327324, at *1. In bankruptcy appeals, motions to

13

stay pending appeal must include “the reasons for granting the relief requested and

14

the facts relied upon,” “affidavits or other sworn statements supporting facts subject

15

to dispute,” and “relevant parts of the record.” In re Borjesson, 2019 WL 1327324, at

16

*1 (quoting Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8007(b)(3)) (denying emergency motion for TRO or

17

stay pending bankruptcy appeal). Courts consider the following factors when

18

deciding whether to grant a stay pending appeal:

19
20
21

(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is
likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;

22

(3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other
parties interested in the proceeding; and

23

(4) where the public interest lies.
ORDER - 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Lair, 697 F.3d at 1203 (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434); see also In re Borjesson,
2019 WL 1327324, at *2 (citing DSB Credit Funding LLC v. Silicon Labs., Inc.,
Case No. 16-CV-05111-LHK, 2016 WL 6893882, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016)
(“Appellants seeking a discretionary stay under Rule 8007 must meet the terms of a
test virtually identical to that for a preliminary injunction.”) (citation omitted)).
“The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances
justify an exercise of [this Court’s] discretion.” Lair, 697 F.3d at 1203 (modification
in original).
Regarding the first prong, Jinka provided only a vague and unsupported
argument about why he was likely to succeed on the merits of his appeal. Bankr.
Dkt. No. 36 at 14. Rather than pointing to any error in the Bankruptcy Court’s
order, Jinka argued that the original foreclosure of his home was subject to
procedural irregularities. See Bankr. Dkt. No. 36 at 17–19 and generally. Since
Jinka failed to advance an argument about the merits of his appeal, the Bankruptcy
Court correctly concluded that he failed to show a likelihood of success.
On the second prong, Jinka argued that he would face irreparable harm
absent a stay because he would face eviction. Bankr. Dkt. No. 36 at 14. But the
Bankruptcy Court aptly concluded that Jinka may challenge his eviction through
the ongoing unlawful detainer action in state court. See Bankr. Dkt. No. 44 at 3.
Given the record, including the evidence establishing Silverline’s ownership of the
property and the nature of the underlying unlawful detainer proceedings, Silverline
will be harmed if it is forced to wait to pursue its state-court action pending this

23
ORDER - 6

1

appeal; it will be unable to take possession of the property it purchased and resolve

2

any challenges to its ownership of that property. Finally, the public interest is

3

served by resolving the state-court matter efficiently, as Jinka’s challenge to the

4

underlying foreclosure and his eviction will be decided in that proceeding.

5
6

For the reasons above, the Court finds that none of the relevant factors weigh
in favor of a stay.
4. CONCLUSION

7
8

The Court ORDERS that Jinka’s emergency motion to stay pending appeal,

9

Dkt. No. 2, is DENIED AS MOOT. In the alternative, the motion is DENIED on the

10

merits. It is so ordered.

11
12

Dated this 26th day of November, 2024.

13

A

14

Jamal N. Whitehead
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER - 7