.jpg)
Stay violation: Continuing collection of domestic
Most of this is my "ideas." I am hoping for them to be helpful but you need
to do research to verify. I worked on a case where Judge Russell entered an
order prohibiting anyone, anywhere in the world from doing X without his
prior permission. The automatic stay is a similar thing: it is a temporary
injunction automatically issued by the Court and without prior notice or
opportunity to object. So a direct reading of the statute would lead one to
conclude that the automatic stay applies to enforcement of the domesticated
judgment.
The problem is that a U.S. court does not have jurisdiction over acts in
another country; I believe this is called the territoriality principle. The
way I see it is that, absent extreme circumstances, the laws of a
particular country apply to conduct in that country. In the IP context,
countries get together and form basic ideas for how they believe IP issues
should be handled, then each country implements their own interpretation of
the agreement and also, to some extent, respects another country's
processes. I.e. if you obtain a registration for trademark in the U.S., it
is much easier to register it in signatory countries without too much
additional effort.
I do not believe there is a treaty/convention specifically for bankruptcy.
For example, if your client owns property in Mexico/Canada, you better have
a lawyer in Mexico/Canada who is knowledgeable about the law in that
country who can help you navigate the waters. You can't file a notice of
stay in the foreign case and expect that judge to follow orders.
All this being said, you have an ace up your sleeve. The person who sued
your client probably has ties in the U.S. Assuming you can get him served
with appropriate paperwork, you should be able to get the U.S. Court to
hold him in contempt and to direct him to stop his collection efforts
abroad. BTW, I believe service by mail is sufficient in the 9th Circuit but
not in the 2nd/3rd so if this is a NY/Delaware case, you need to follow
Hague convention guidelines. I would definitely double check. Good luck!
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
Avanesian Law Firm
801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: 818.276.2477 | Fax: 818.208.4550
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code,
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction or matter addressed herein.
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:28 PM, 'Steven B. Lever' sblever@leverlaw.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> I would think soits the same judgment wherever it is.
>
>
>
> Steve Lever
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2016 5:19 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Stay violation: Continuing collection of domestic
> American judgment in Hague country?
>
>
>
>
>
> Creditor gets a breach of contract for non-payment of loan judgment in a
> California Court against an American citizen. American citizen moves to a
> country that is a signatory to the Hague convention. Creditor domesticates
> judgment in such foreign country. American citizen returns to U.S. and
> files a Chapter 7 case. Does the creditor violate the automatic stay if it
> continues to prosecute collection of the domesticated judgment in the
> foreign country under the rationale that what is being prosecuted is the
> domesticated judgment?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
>
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> **Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal
> Specialization*
>
> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
>
> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
>
> Commercial Litigation
>
> Estate Planning
>
> Outside General Counsel
>
>
>
>
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
> AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>
> Note: The information in this e-mail message is not intended to be legal
> advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice unless counsel
> expressly contracted in writing to provide such advice. Furthermore, the
> information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information
> intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader
> of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
> delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail
> at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>
>
>
Most of this is my "ideas." I am hoping for them to be helpful but you need to do research to verify. I worked on a case where Judge Russell entered an order prohibiting anyone, anywhere in the world from doing X without his prior permission. The automatic stay is a similar thing: it is a temporary injunction automatically issued by the Court and without prior notice or opportunity to object. So a direct reading of the statute would lead one to conclude that the automatic stay applies to enforcement of the domesticated judgment.The problem is that a U.S. court does not have jurisdiction over acts in another country; I believe this is called the territoriality principle. The way I see it is that, absent extreme circumstances, the laws of a particular country apply to conduct in that country. In the IP context, countries get together and form basic ideas for how they believe IP issues should be handled, then each country implements their own interpretation of the agreement and also, to some extent, respects another country's processes. I.e. if you obtain a registration for trademark in the U.S., it is much easier to register it in signatory countries without too much additional effort.I do not believe there is a treaty/convention specifically for bankruptcy. For example, if your client owns property in Mexico/Canada, you better have a lawyer in Mexico/Canada who is knowledgeable about the law in that country who can help you navigate the waters. You can't file a notice of stay in the foreign case and expect that judge to follow orders.All this being said, you have an ace up your sleeve. The person who sued your client probably has ties in the U.S. Assuming you can get him served with appropriate paperwork, you should be able to get the U.S. Court to hold him in contempt and to direct him to stop his collection efforts abroad. BTW, I believe service by mail is sufficient in the 9th Circuit but not in the 2nd/3rd so if this is a NY/Delaware case, you need to follow Hague convention guidelines. I would definitely double check. Good luck!
The post was migrated from Yahoo.