In Re: Jordana Marinkovic Bauman
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Appellant Mel Marin filed a motion to clarify whether his recent bankruptcy filing stayed the case or transferred standing to the bankruptcy trustee. The court denied the implied request for a stay, noting that no automatic stay was ordered and the appellant failed to meet the burden of showing circumstances justifying a stay.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Appellant's implied request for a stay of proceedings“To the extent Appellant seeks to impliedly suggest, through his Motion to Clarify, that this case should be stayed, the Court DENIES such request.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the appellant's motion was effectively a request for a stay. The court applied the standard that the party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing circumstances justifying the exercise of discretion. The appellant's motion consisted of a single sentence citing a case regarding standing in bankruptcy but did not provide specific facts or legal arguments demonstrating why a stay was necessary or appropriate under the circumstances. Therefore, the denial was procedurally sound based on the failure to meet the burden of proof. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly distinguishes between an automatic stay (which the court notes was not ordered) and a discretionary stay. It correctly places the burden on the moving party to justify a stay. The court's reliance on the appellant's failure to provide sufficient argumentation in a single-sentence motion is a valid basis for denial. However, the order does not explicitly address the standing issue raised by the appellant's citation to Lane, focusing instead on the stay request. While the denial of the stay is the primary operative ruling, the failure to explicitly rule on the standing question (or clarify that the bankruptcy filing does not automatically divest standing without a trustee's action) is a minor gap, though the denial of the stay effectively leaves the case proceeding with the current appellant.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IN RE: JORDANA M. BAUMAN, Case No.: 3:24-CV-1564 JLS (BLM)
12 Debtor, ORDER ON APPELLANT’S 13 MOTION TO CLARIFY STATUS AFTER BANKRUPTCY FILING 14 15 MEL MARIN, (ECF No. 17) 16 Appellant, 18 MICHAEL KOCH, Appellee. 19 20 21 Presently before the Court is Appellant Mel Marin’s Motion titled “Appellant’s 22 Notice of and Motion to Clarify Status After Bankruptcy Filing” (“Mot.,” ECF No. 17). 23 Appellant indicates he filed for bankruptcy on December 9, 2024, and “asks if this case is 24 stayed because only the bankruptcy trustee has standing to prosecute this appeal against 25 Mr. Koch et al, under the rule in [Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Industries Group], 26 713 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1097 (E.D. Cal. 2010).” Mot. at 1. The Court notes that in Lane, 27 the court held, “[i]f plaintiffs were in bankruptcy they clearly would lack standing to bring 28 this action absent abandonment of their claims by the bankruptcy trustee. However, 1 || plaintiffs continue to have standing to pursue this case because their bankruptcy petition 2 || was dismissed after [the relevant motion was filed].” Lane, 713 F. Supp. 2d at 1097. At 3 || present, Appellant indicates only that he has filed for bankruptcy, not that such petition has 4 ||been denied or granted. Mot. at 1. 5 To the extent Plaintiff requests “clarification” regarding whether this case is 6 presently stayed, the Court has not ordered a stay. See Docket. Rather, the Court 7 || previously denied Appellant’s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. See ECF No. 15. To the 8 ||extent Appellant seeks to impliedly suggest, through his Motion to Clarify, that this case 9 should be stayed, the Court DENIES such request. Appellant, whose Motion consists of 10 ||a single sentence, has not met his burden of showing that the circumstances justify an 11 ||}exercise of the Court’s discretion to grant a stay. See Hoffmann v. Price, 12 || No. 2:15-CV-1527 DB P, 2019 WL 498991, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2019) (“The party 13 requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of 14 || that discretion.”). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ||Dated: December 19, 2024 (een on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28