Need case saying stay stops litigation filed by debtor as plaintiff
Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2015 4:54 pm
That's exactly what I did, Dennis. Thank you. Delpit cites a case named
In re Bloom that seems helpful but I didn't have to bother understanding
it since I removed. Judge was intent on proceeding, but respected the
removal.
On Sunday, October 25, 2015, cdcbaa cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Gio:
>
> Old case, Hotel De la Croix, was the first case to differentiate that
> there is no stay for actions when the debtor is plaintiff. Basically said
> stay is defensive, not offensive. Came out of the Caribbean, maybe 20
> years ago. It has slowly become the majority rule.
>
> Not at a computer to do legal research, but I don't think you will find a
> current case opposite De La Croix.
>
> The answer is to remove the action to the bk court.
>
> D
>
> Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503
> 310-328-1001-voice
> [image: cid:part1.03050307.05030101@bklaw.com]
>
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 2:09 PM, david@dpjacob.com
> [cdcbaa] cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> probably too late to help
> And maybe this case does not apply but I think it does
>
> Delpit v CIR 18 F3d 768 9th Circuit 1994
> Despite the fact that debtors initiated the tax court proceeding and filed
> notice of appeal pre petition proceeding with appeal would have been
> violative of the stay.
>
> David.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* "Giovanni Orantes go@gobklaw.com
> [cdcbaa]" cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> >
> *To:* "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> " cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> >
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 22, 2015 10:31 AM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Need case saying stay stops litigation filed by
> debtor as plaintiff
>
>
> I have found it previously, but cannot find it right now. Does anybody
> have that? State Court wants to proceed with trial right now.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
>
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
That's exactly what I did, Dennis. Thank you. Delpit cites a case named In re Bloom that seems helpful but I didn't have to bother understanding itsince I removed. Judge was intent on proceeding, but respected the removal.On Sunday, October 25, 2015, cdcbaa cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Gio:Old case, Hotel De la Croix, was the first case to differentiate that there is no stay for actions when the debtor is plaintiff. Basically said stay is defensive, not offensive. Came out of the Caribbean, maybe 20 years ago. It has slowly become the majority rule. Not at a computer to do legal research, but I don't think you will find a current case opposite De La Croix.The answer is to remove the action to the bk court.DDennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voiceOn Oct 22,
The post was migrated from Yahoo.