Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

charset="windows-1251"
Not sure I agree with my brother Dennis. So long as NOTHING in the
complaint is changed as to the Debtor and the amended complaint is not
served on the Debtor, I don't see how this is any different than a
substitution of a named party for a Doe Defendant.
David A. Tilem
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
* Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
Specialization.
Dennis McGoldrick
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:09 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Automatic Stay
yes

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

yes

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

After being sued by Plaintiff in state court, Debtor filed chapter 7
bankruptcy, and state court suit was stayed. Must Plaintiff seek
relief from stay before filing an amended complaint in state court
suit naming additional defendants?
Alik Segal
Alik.Segal@gmail.com
310-362-6157
Cal. CD, Los Angeles

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Most cases say yes. One or two odd ones say no.
Dennis McGoldrick
350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B
Torrance, CA 90503
On Jun 11, 2010, at 4:06 PM, "sesmithesq" wrote:
> Does the distinction between the automatic stay as it applies to
> individuals and the stay as to "the estate" still apply post-BARF,
> particularly in regards to multiple filers?
>
>
Most cases say yes. One or two odd ones say no.Dennis McGoldrick350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207BTorrance, CA 90503On Jun 11, 2010, at 4:06 PM, "sesmithesq" <sesmithesq@aol.com> wrote:

Does the distinction between the automatic stay as it applies to individuals and the stay as to "the estate" still apply post-BARF, particularly in regards to multiple filers?

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Most cases say yes. One or two odd ones say no.
Dennis McGoldrick
350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B
Torrance, CA 90503
On Jun 11, 2010, at 4:06 PM, "sesmithesq" wrote:
> Does the distinction between the automatic stay as it applies to
> individuals and the stay as to "the estate" still apply post-BARF,
> particularly in regards to multiple filers?
>
>
Most cases say yes. One or two odd ones say no.Dennis McGoldrick350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207BTorrance, CA 90503On Jun 11, 2010, at 4:06 PM, "sesmithesq" <sesmithesq@aol.com> wrote:

Does the distinction between the automatic stay as it applies to individuals and the stay as to "the estate" still apply post-BARF, particularly in regards to multiple filers?

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Does the distinction between the automatic stay as it applies to individuals and the stay as to "the estate" still apply post-BARF, particularly in regards to multiple filers?

The post was migrated from Yahoo.