United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of Californiaecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/Posted/VK_121019.pdfSan Fernando Valley Tuesday, December 10, 2019 Hearing Room 301 10:30 AM

United States Bankruptcy CourtCentral District of California

Judge Victoria Kaufman, PresidingCourtroom 301 Calendar

San Fernando Valley

Tuesday, December 10, 2019 301 Hearing Room

9:30 AM1:00-00000 Chapter

#0.00 PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE CHAPTER 13 CONFIRMATION CALENDAR CAN BE VIEWED ON THE COURT'S WEBSITE UNDER:JUDGES >KAUFMAN,V. >CHAPTER 13 > CHAPTER 13 CALENDAR(WWW.CACB.USCOURTS.GOV)

0Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Page 1 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMAlmayvonne Dixon1:14-12143 Chapter 13

#43.00 Trustee's motion to dismiss case for failure to submit all tax returns

fr. 09/10/19; 11/12/19;

51Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: Motion withdrawn 12/5/19 - jc

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Almayvonne Dixon Represented ByMichael F Chekian

Trustee(s):

Elizabeth (SV) F Rojas (TR) Pro Se

Page 2 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMRoy Guzman and Barbara J Jankovich1:15-10157 Chapter 13

#44.00 Trustee's motion to dismiss chapter 13 case due to material default of the plan pursuant to §1307(c)(6) failure to submit all tax returns

fr. 10/8/19; 11/12/19;

41Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Roy Guzman Represented ByJulie J Villalobos

Joint Debtor(s):

Barbara J Jankovich Represented ByJulie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):


Page 3 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMRodolfo Trujillo and Annette Marie Trujillo1:15-11547 Chapter 13

#45.00 Trustee's motion to dismiss case for failure to submit all tax returns

fr. 08/13/19;

42Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: Voluntary dismissal filed 09/12/19

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rodolfo Trujillo Represented ByDaniel F Jimenez

Joint Debtor(s):

Annette Marie Trujillo Represented ByDaniel F Jimenez

Trustee(s):


Page 4 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMDonald M. Baarns and Lisa A. Baarns1:15-11825 Chapter 13

#46.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case for Failure to Submit All Tax Refunds

fr. 10/8/19


- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Donald M. Baarns Represented ByAli R Nader

Joint Debtor(s):

Lisa A. Baarns Represented ByAli R Nader

Trustee(s):


Page 5 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMDavid Bruce McBride and Brenda Sherman McBride1:15-12076 Chapter 13

#47.00 Trustee's motion to dismiss case for failure to make plan payments

56Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David Bruce McBride Represented ByAllan S Williams

Joint Debtor(s):

Brenda Sherman McBride Represented ByAllan S Williams

Trustee(s):


Page 6 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMHector Flores and Martha Flores1:15-13062 Chapter 13

#48.00 Trustee's motion to dismiss case for failure to submit all tax refunds

fr. 10/8/19


- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Hector Flores Represented ByDonald E Iwuchuku

Joint Debtor(s):

Martha Flores Represented ByDonald E Iwuchuku

Trustee(s):


Page 7 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMJohn Charles Salvatore Vitale and Grettell Vannessa Vitale1:15-13159 Chapter 13


fr. 10/8/19

57Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

John Charles Salvatore Vitale Represented ByMichael Poole

Joint Debtor(s):

Grettell Vannessa Vitale Represented ByMichael Poole

Trustee(s):


Page 8 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMRoy Glen Stout and Sherri Sue Kirby-Stout1:15-13422 Chapter 13


fr. 10/8/19

80Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Roy Glen Stout Represented ByGregory M Shanfeld

Joint Debtor(s):

Sherri Sue Kirby-Stout Represented ByGregory M Shanfeld

Trustee(s):


Page 9 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMBrian Jeffrey Bolokofsky and Sara Joanne Bolokofsky1:15-13479 Chapter 13


fr. 10/8/19; 11/12/19;

65Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Brian Jeffrey Bolokofsky Represented ByAllan S Williams

Joint Debtor(s):

Sara Joanne Bolokofsky Represented ByAllan S Williams

Trustee(s):


Page 10 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMAngela Cordero Britton1:16-10126 Chapter 13


fr. 11/12/19;

73Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Angela Cordero Britton Represented ByKevin T Simon

Trustee(s):


Page 11 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMGil Loera1:16-10314 Chapter 13


fr. 10/8/19; 11/12/19;


- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gil Loera Represented ByDaniel King

Trustee(s):


Page 12 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMMaya Estuani1:16-10473 Chapter 13



- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Maya Estuani Represented ByKevin T Simon

Trustee(s):


Page 13 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMStepan Zamkochyan and Ruzanna Khachatryan1:16-10587 Chapter 13


78Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Stepan Zamkochyan Represented ByAris Artounians

Joint Debtor(s):

Ruzanna Khachatryan Represented ByAris Artounians

Trustee(s):


Page 14 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMMichel A. Contreras, IV and Carmen Contreras1:16-10774 Chapter 13


101Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michel A. Contreras IV Represented ByRene Lopez De Arenosa Jr

Joint Debtor(s):

Carmen Contreras Represented ByRene Lopez De Arenosa Jr

Trustee(s):


Page 15 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMLuis Lugo Duenez and Maria Dolores Duenez1:16-10795 Chapter 13


81Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Luis Lugo Duenez Represented ByJaime A Cuevas Jr.

Joint Debtor(s):

Maria Dolores Duenez Represented ByJaime A Cuevas Jr.

Trustee(s):


Page 16 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMJosue Soncuya Villanueva1:16-10925 Chapter 13


101Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Josue Soncuya Villanueva Represented ByMichael F Chekian

Trustee(s):


Page 17 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMRobert Lazar Levitan and Catherine Palmerino Levitan1:16-11663 Chapter 13



- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Robert Lazar Levitan Represented ByRaj T WadhwaniGregory M Shanfeld

Joint Debtor(s):

Catherine Palmerino Levitan Represented ByRaj T WadhwaniGregory M Shanfeld

Trustee(s):


Page 18 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMJesus Jose Esquivel1:16-13639 Chapter 13


53Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jesus Jose Esquivel Represented ByKevin T Simon

Trustee(s):


Page 19 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMAmelia Quezada Velasquez1:17-10025 Chapter 13



- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Amelia Quezada Velasquez Represented ByKevin T Simon

Trustee(s):


Page 20 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMJulio A Estrada and Marcia D Cruz Estrada1:17-10244 Chapter 13


41Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: Voluntary dismissal of motion filed 11/14/19

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Julio A Estrada Represented ByRaymond Perez

Joint Debtor(s):

Marcia D Cruz Estrada Represented ByRaymond Perez

Trustee(s):


Page 21 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMElsa Amparo Muralles1:17-10419 Chapter 13


35Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: Motion of voluntary dismissal filed 11/6/19

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Elsa Amparo Muralles Represented ByKevin T Simon

Trustee(s):


Page 22 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMShawn Adam Johnson and Taniesah Evans1:17-10463 Chapter 13


53Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Shawn Adam Johnson Represented ByJoshua L Sternberg

Joint Debtor(s):

Taniesah Evans Represented ByJoshua L Sternberg

Trustee(s):


Page 23 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMPrincess Fletcher1:17-10475 Chapter 13


88Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Princess Fletcher Represented ByAli R Nader

Trustee(s):


Page 24 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMDavid Polushkin and Inessa Polushkin1:17-10630 Chapter 13



- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David Polushkin Represented ByElena Steers

Joint Debtor(s):

Inessa Polushkin Represented ByElena Steers

Trustee(s):


Page 25 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMAlvin Isidro1:17-10747 Chapter 13



- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Alvin Isidro Represented ByRobert M Aronson

Trustee(s):


Page 26 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMMaria Guadalupe Serrano1:17-10821 Chapter 13

#68.00 Trustee's motion to dismiss Case for Failure to make plan payments

33Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Maria Guadalupe Serrano Represented ByThomas B Ure

Trustee(s):


Page 27 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMJasmine Bone1:17-11041 Chapter 13


44Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jasmine Bone Represented ByAli R Nader

Trustee(s):


Page 28 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMJose Uribe1:17-11071 Chapter 13


42Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose Uribe Represented ByDonald E Iwuchuku

Trustee(s):


Page 29 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMJose Orcia Ramirez1:17-11135 Chapter 13


fr. 11/12/19;

40Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose Orcia Ramirez Represented ByHasmik Jasmine Papian

Trustee(s):


Page 30 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMMalihe Farahnak1:17-11368 Chapter 13



- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Malihe Farahnak Represented ByStella A Havkin

Trustee(s):


Page 31 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMDana Anthony Bambo and Carla Lombardo Bambo1:17-11488 Chapter 13


50Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Dana Anthony Bambo Represented ByWilliam G Cort

Joint Debtor(s):

Carla Lombardo Bambo Represented ByWilliam G Cort

Trustee(s):


Page 32 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMSolyman Davidesfahani and Sharzad Davidesfahani1:17-11521 Chapter 13



- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Solyman Davidesfahani Represented ByAli R Nader

Joint Debtor(s):

Sharzad Davidesfahani Represented ByAli R Nader

Trustee(s):


Page 33 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMRuth Ann Brown1:17-11962 Chapter 13



- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ruth Ann Brown Represented ByMichael E Clark

Trustee(s):


Page 34 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMCynthia Ann Donahue1:17-12163 Chapter 13


46Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: Withdrawal of motion filed 12/5/19.

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Cynthia Ann Donahue Represented ByRuss W Ercolani

Trustee(s):


Page 35 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMSaul Wilfredo Parada and Maria Idaila Parada1:17-12291 Chapter 13



- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Saul Wilfredo Parada Represented ByBrad Weil

Joint Debtor(s):

Maria Idaila Parada Represented ByBrad Weil

Trustee(s):


Page 36 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMTeresa Hernandez1:17-12701 Chapter 13


38Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Teresa Hernandez Represented ByDonald E Iwuchuku

Trustee(s):


Page 37 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMTeresa Hernandez1:17-12701 Chapter 13


40Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Teresa Hernandez Represented ByDonald E Iwuchuku

Trustee(s):


Page 38 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMHenry Chukwu Okonkwo1:17-12779 Chapter 13


34Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Henry Chukwu Okonkwo Represented ByKevin T Simon

Trustee(s):


Page 39 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMHenry Chukwu Okonkwo1:17-12779 Chapter 13


33Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Henry Chukwu Okonkwo Represented ByKevin T Simon

Trustee(s):


Page 40 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMGerardo Paz and Araceli Diane Paz1:17-12788 Chapter 13


44Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gerardo Paz Represented ByKhachik Akhkashian

Joint Debtor(s):

Araceli Diane Paz Represented ByKhachik Akhkashian

Trustee(s):


Page 41 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMHector Garcia and Edelmira Avila Garcia1:17-13028 Chapter 13



- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Hector Garcia Represented ByLeRoy Roberson

Joint Debtor(s):

Edelmira Avila Garcia Represented ByLeRoy Roberson

Trustee(s):


Page 42 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMBenjawan Rachapaetayakom1:17-13039 Chapter 13


118Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Benjawan Rachapaetayakom Represented ByJoshua L Sternberg

Trustee(s):


Page 43 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMKathleen Moore1:17-13080 Chapter 13


25Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Kathleen Moore Represented ByNathan A Berneman

Trustee(s):


Page 44 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMJohn Orlanes Case and Lourdes Halili Case1:17-13138 Chapter 13


51Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

John Orlanes Case Represented ByLawrence B Yang

Joint Debtor(s):

Lourdes Halili Case Represented ByLawrence B Yang

Trustee(s):


Page 45 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMUlysses Juarez1:17-13189 Chapter 13

#86.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case for Failure to Make Plan Payments

fr. 11/12/19;

44Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ulysses Juarez Represented ByDevin Sawdayi

Trustee(s):


Page 46 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMSeferino Carlin1:17-13190 Chapter 13



- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Seferino Carlin Represented ByDevin Sawdayi

Trustee(s):


Page 47 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMStephanie Marie Wilson1:17-13192 Chapter 13


fr. 09/10/19; 11/12/19;

52Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Stephanie Marie Wilson Represented ByTodd J Roberts

Trustee(s):


Page 48 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMStephanie Marie Wilson1:17-13192 Chapter 13


55Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: Withdrawal of motion filed 11/14/19. [Dkt.59]

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Stephanie Marie Wilson Represented ByTodd J Roberts

Trustee(s):


Page 49 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMMark Efrem Rosenberg1:17-13413 Chapter 13



- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mark Efrem Rosenberg Represented ByRichard Mark Garber

Trustee(s):


Page 50 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMMildred Annett Barajas1:18-10033 Chapter 13


52Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mildred Annett Barajas Represented BySteven A Wolvek

Trustee(s):


Page 51 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMOrlando Velazco1:18-10122 Chapter 13



- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Orlando Velazco Represented ByJeffrey J Hagen

Trustee(s):


Page 52 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMAnthony Arieh Surkin and Lili Merhavi Surkin1:18-10170 Chapter 13



- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Anthony Arieh Surkin Represented ByJeffrey J Hagen

Joint Debtor(s):

Lili Merhavi Surkin Represented ByJeffrey J Hagen

Trustee(s):


Page 53 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMAdaure Chinyere Egu1:18-10288 Chapter 13



- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Adaure Chinyere Egu Represented ByJeffrey J Hagen

Trustee(s):


Page 54 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMMitchell S. Cohen1:18-10314 Chapter 13


Case dismissed 11/12/19

127Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: Case dismissed on 11/12/19 [doc. 137]. The motion is moot.

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mitchell S. Cohen Represented ByKevin T Simon

Trustee(s):


Page 55 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMAviva Rachel Harris1:18-10575 Chapter 13


59Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Aviva Rachel Harris Represented ByJeffrey J Hagen

Trustee(s):


Page 56 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMNarkell Hobbs-James1:18-10798 Chapter 13


63Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Narkell Hobbs-James Represented ByDevin Sawdayi

Trustee(s):


Page 57 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMNathan Cohen1:18-11941 Chapter 13


81Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Nathan Cohen Represented BySanaz S Bereliani

Trustee(s):


Page 58 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMMichael Anthony Sarnataro and Cindi Joanna Romualdo- 1:18-12090 Chapter 13


34Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Anthony Sarnataro Represented ByDavid H Chung

Joint Debtor(s):

Cindi Joanna Romualdo- Sarnataro Represented ByDavid H Chung

Trustee(s):


Page 59 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMMargarita Fernandez Farrell1:18-12196 Chapter 13


32Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: Motion of voluntary dismissal filed 11/6/19

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Margarita Fernandez Farrell Represented ByBarry E Borowitz

Trustee(s):


Page 60 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMFaun Thai1:18-12232 Chapter 13


41Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: Withdrawal of motion filed 12/5/19.

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Faun Thai Represented ByDevin Sawdayi

Trustee(s):


Page 61 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMDavid D Miller1:18-12645 Chapter 13



- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David D Miller Represented ByNathan A Berneman

Trustee(s):


Page 62 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMKathleen Magdaleno1:18-12806 Chapter 13


71Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Kathleen Magdaleno Represented ByJoshua L Sternberg

Trustee(s):


Page 63 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


10:30 AMGus Albert Bolona and Deirdre Marie Bolona1:19-10022 Chapter 13


34Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gus Albert Bolona Represented ByRichard Mark Garber

Joint Debtor(s):

Deirdre Marie Bolona Represented ByRichard Mark Garber

Trustee(s):


Page 64 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMRoy Glen Stout and Sherri Sue Kirby-Stout1:15-13422 Chapter 13

#105.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments

83Docket

On October 7, 2019, the debtors filed a Motion Under LBR 3015-1(n) and (w) to Modify Plan or Suspend Plan Payments (the "Motion") [doc. 83]. On October 15, 2019, the chapter 13 trustee (the "Trustee") filed Trustee’s Comments or Objection to the Motion (the "Objection") [doc. 85].

In the Objection, the Trustee states that she disapproves of the Court granting the Motion because she cannot determine that the debtors are making their best effort. The Trustee represents that since the filing of the case, the debtors have moved to Texas, and as such, no longer pay state taxes. In addition, the Trustee represents that the debtors’ income has increased, but they had not filed amended schedules I and J or provided evidence of their income to the Trustee.

On December 3, 2019, the debtors filed amended schedules I and J [doc. 88]. Does the Trustee still oppose the Motion?

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Roy Glen Stout Represented ByGregory M Shanfeld

Joint Debtor(s):

Sherri Sue Kirby-Stout Represented ByGregory M Shanfeld

Trustee(s):


Page 65 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMBrian Jeffrey Bolokofsky and Sara Joanne Bolokofsky1:15-13479 Chapter 13

#106.00 Debtors' motion under LBR 3015-(n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments

fr. 11/12/19

67Docket

No opposition to the Second Motion was timely filed. However, as of December 4, 2019, the debtors have not filed a declaration that no party requested a hearing and they have not lodged an order. Assuming the chapter 13 trustee has no further objections to the First Motion and no objections to the Second Motion, the Court will grant the First Motion.

Movants must submit the order within seven (7) days.

Ruling from November 12, 2019

The Court will continue this hearing to December 10, 2019 at 11:00 a.m.

On October 19, 2015, Brian Jeffrey Bolokofsky and Sara Joanne Bolokofsky (the "Debtors") filed the above-captioned chapter 13 case. On March 18, 2016, the Court entered an order confirming the Debtors’ chapter 13 plan (the "Plan") [doc. 37].

On September 18, 2019, the Debtors filed a Motion Under LBR 3015-1(n) and (w) to Modify Plan or Suspend Plan Payments (the "First Motion") [doc. 67]. On October 8, 2019, the chapter 13 trustee filed Trustee’s Comments or Objection to the Motion (the "Comment") [doc. 70]. In the Comment, the chapter 13 trustee indicates approval of the First Motion upon certain conditions, including that: (1) the Debtors provide a copy of their 2018 tax return no later than October 15, 2019 and contribute any 2018 tax refund to their plan; and (2) the Debtors file an updated budget to reflect their current income and expenses. On October 21, 2019, the Court entered an order requiring the Debtors to file evidence demonstrating that they have complied with the conditions in the Comment by November 5, 2019.

Tentative Ruling:

Page 66 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMBrian Jeffrey Bolokofsky and Sara Joanne BolokofskyCONT... Chapter 13

On November 4, 2019, the Debtors filed a second Motion Under LBR 3015-1(n) and (w) to Modify Plan or Suspend Plan Payments (the "Second Motion") [doc. 75]. In the Second Motion, the Debtors propose modification of the Plan to suspend contributing their 2018 tax refund to the Plan. Any opposition to the Second Motion will be due on November 25, 2019.

On November 5, 2019, the Debtors filed evidence demonstrating that on October 17, 2019, they submitted a copy of their 2018 tax return to the chapter 13 trustee [doc. 78]. On November 5, 2019, the Debtors also filed amended schedules I and J [doc. 77].

Given that the Debtors have not contributed their 2018 tax refund to the Plan, one of the conditions in the Comment, the Court will continue this hearing to December 10, 2019, in order to assess the outcome of the Second Motion.

Appearances on November 12, 2019 are excused.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Brian Jeffrey Bolokofsky Represented ByAllan S Williams

Joint Debtor(s):

Sara Joanne Bolokofsky Represented ByAllan S Williams

Trustee(s):


Page 67 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMAlba Interiano1:18-11680 Chapter 13

#107.00 Ex parte motion for order directing turnover of property of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. sec 542(a)

fr. 10/8/19

88Docket

The Court will award damages to the debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k).

I. BACKGROUND

Prepetition, on September 17, 2013, the Superior Court of California entered a default judgment against Alba Interiano ("Debtor") and in favor of TX Collect, Inc. ("TX Collect") in the amount of $20,211.71 (the "Judgment"). Declaration of Alba Interiano ("Interiano Declaration") [doc. 88], ¶ 2. On May 18, 2017, TX Collect assigned to Persolve Legal Group, LLP ("Persolve") all title, right and interest in the Judgment. Interiano Declaration, ¶ 3.

On March 29, 2018, Persolve submitted a writ of execution (the "Writ") to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (the "Sheriff"). Interiano Declaration, ¶ 5. On April 24, 2018, the Sheriff served the Writ on Bank of America, N.A. ("Bank of America"). Interiano Declaration, ¶ 6.

On July 3, 2018, Debtor filed a chapter 13 petition. The petition was served on TX Collect at 9301 Corbin Avenue, Ste. 1600, Northridge, CA 91324 (the "Corbin Address"). On August 23, 2018, Persolve filed proof of claim no. 3-1 and attached the Writ as support for its claim. In the proof of claim, Persolve indicated that all notices should be sent to the Corbin Address. The proof of claim was signed by Michael H. Raichelson. On September 27, 2018, Bank of America released to the Sheriff $58,245.25 from Debtor’s account (the "Funds"). Interiano Declaration, ¶ 8.

On August 12, 2019, Debtor filed amended schedules A/B and C [doc. 83]. In the amended schedule A/B, Debtor listed an interest in the Funds held by the Sheriff. In

Tentative Ruling:

Page 68 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMAlba InterianoCONT... Chapter 13

her amended schedule C, Debtor claimed an exemption in $10,000 of the Funds. Debtor served her amended schedules on Mr. Raichelson, on behalf of Persolve, at Mr. Raichelson’s email address. Debtor also served Persolve at the Corbin Address.

On August 22, 2019, Debtor filed a motion for turnover of the Funds (the "Motion") [doc. 88]. Once again, Debtor served the Motion on Mr. Raichelson, on behalf of Persolve, at Mr. Raichelson’s email address, and on Persolve at the Corbin Address. On September 16, 2019, Persolve opposed the Motion (the "Opposition") [doc. 96], arguing that the estate does not have an interest in the Funds. On September 19, 2019, Persolve filed an amended claim, again attaching the Writ as evidence. On September 27, 2019, Debtor filed a reply to the Opposition [doc. 100], asserting that Persolve is in violation of the automatic stay for refusing to order the release of the Funds. Again, Debtor served the reply on Mr. Raichelson, on behalf of Persolve, at Mr. Raichelson’s email address. Debtor also served Persolve at the Corbin Address.

On October 8, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the Motion, ruling that the Funds are property of the estate. The Court continued the hearing to assess Debtor’s request for damages under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k). On November 26, 2019, Persolve filed a supplemental opposition to the Motion (the "Supplemental Opposition") [doc. 110]. In the Supplemental Opposition, Persolve contends that the Motion is moot because Persolve notified the Sheriff to turn over the Funds to Debtor. Persolve does not specify when it returned the Funds to Debtor, noting only that it transferred the Funds in October 2019. Declaration of Michael H. Raichelson, ¶ 6. Persolve also contends that there was no willful violation of the automatic stay because the Sheriff did not notify Persolve that it was in possession of Debtor’s funds. Finally, Persolve contends that its failure to act affirmatively to release the Funds did not qualify as a violation of the automatic stay.

On December 3, 2019, Debtor filed a reply to the Supplemental Opposition (the "Supplemental Reply") [doc. 112]. In the Declaration of Shana Y. Stark (the "Stark Declaration"), attached to the Supplemental Reply, Ms. Stark states that, from August 9, 2019 through August 13, 2019, the parties attempted to resolve this issue prior to Debtor filing the Motion. Stark Declaration, ¶ 16. Emails attached to the Stark Declaration demonstrate that Debtor demanded a release of the Funds starting August 7, 2019, and Persolve responded by asserting it did not have an obligation to release the Funds. Stark Declaration, ¶ 16, Exhibit C.

Page 69 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley



Debtor also attaches an itemized statement of the alleged attorneys’ fees and costs incurred prosecuting the Motion. Supplemental Reply, Exhibit D. However, Debtor has not authenticated this exhibit.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Mootness

As a preliminary matter, the Motion is not moot. The Court continued the hearing on the Motion to assess Debtor’s damages under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k). Those damages, including Debtor’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs, remain at issue whether or not Persolve has returned the Funds to Debtor.

B. Refusal to Release Garnishment as Violation of the Automatic Stay

In its prior ruling, the Court held that the Funds are property of the estate. As such, the Court will not revisit that issue and focus instead on whether Persolve’s failure to order the release of the Funds promptly constitutes a violation of the automatic stay. 11 U.S.C. § 362 provides, in pertinent part—

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a petition filed under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title...operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of—…

(2) the enforcement, against the debtor or against property of the estate, of a judgment obtained before the commencement of the case under this title;

(3) any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate….

An affirmative duty is imposed on nondebtor parties to comply with the stay, and to remedy any violations, even if inadvertent, of the automatic stay. In re Dyer, 322 F.3d 1178, 1191-92 (9th Cir. 2003). "[A] garnishing creditor has an affirmative duty to stop garnishment proceedings when notified of the automatic stay." In re Roberts, 175

Page 70 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley



B.R. 339, 343 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1994); see also In re Del Mission Ltd., 98 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1996) ("[T]he knowing retention of estate property violates the automatic stay of § 362(a)(3).").

Persolve cites a single case in support of its theory that Persolve’s failure to direct the release of the Funds was not a violation of the automatic stay. See In re Miller, 2011 WL 6217342 (Bankr. D. Colo. Dec. 14, 2011). However, as noted by a court within this circuit—

In re Miller is similarly unpersuasive. Although that case adopts the position that a creditor's refusal to release pre-petition seized funds does not violate the automatic stay, it relies on Colorado law and out-of-circuit precedent and is therefore not binding on this Court.

In re Bayley, 2015 WL 224720, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2015), aff’d, 678 F. App'x 593 (9th Cir. 2017). In fact, Bayley provides an in-depth analysis of the applicable law within the Ninth Circuit. The facts in Bayley are strikingly analogous to the facts here. There, prepetition, a creditor obtained a judgment against the debtor followed by a writ of execution. Bayley, 2015 WL 224720 at *1. Thereafter, the Sheriff levied $4,000 from the debtor’s account. Id. Subsequently, the debtor filed a chapter 13 petition. Id.

Upon filing her petition, the debtor notified both the Sheriff and the creditor about the filing of the petition. Id. The debtor then sought the release of her funds from the Sheriff. Id., at *2. The creditor refused to effectuate a release of the funds, compelling the debtor to file a motion for sanctions for violation of the automatic stay. Id.

On these facts, the bankruptcy court held that the creditor violated the automatic stay and, therefore, was liable for the debtor’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred obtaining a release of the funds. Id. In affirming the bankruptcy court’s decision, the district court held that the refusal to release the funds was a violation of both 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(2) and (a)(3). Id., at *5.

In reaching this conclusion, the district court primarily relied on three decisions. See In re Knaus, 889 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1989) (holding that, although the creditor filed the writ of execution prepetition, the creditor had an affirmative duty to order the release

Page 71 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley



of funds in the sheriff’s possession upon the debtor’s filing of a bankruptcy petition); In re Abrams, 127 B.R. 239, 242 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1991) (adopting the reasoning of Knaus in a case where the creditor refused to return repossessed property of the estate); and Del Mission, 98 F.3d at 1151. After assessing these authorities, the Bayley court stated—

Read together, these three decisions compel the conclusion that [the creditor] violated § 362(a)(3) by failing to direct the Sheriff to release the $4,000.… Knaus stands for the principles that a creditor has an affirmative duty to return estate property, that this duty arises once the debtor files for bankruptcy, and that the failure to fulfill this duty constitutes an impermissible exercise of control in violation of the automatic stay under § 362(a)(3). That a creditor does not physically possess the property does not necessarily dispel this duty. Here, [the creditor] had the authority to control the levied funds despite its lack of possession…. The factual difference between a creditor's knowing possession and retention of estate property in cases like In re Abrams and In re Del Mission and [the creditor’s] knowing refusal to direct the Sheriff to release the levied funds in this case is slight. In both circumstances, it is the creditor's exercise of control, not mere possession, that constitutes a violation of the automatic stay. By failing to direct the Sheriff to release the funds, Appellant exercised control over property of the bankruptcy estate. Accordingly, Appellant violated § 362(a)(3).

Bayley, 2015 WL 224720 at *6 (emphasis in Bayley). Both in-circuit and out-of-circuit cases have reached a similar conclusion. See, e.g. In re Hernandez, 468 B.R. 396 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2012); In re Roche, 361 B.R. 615 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2005); In re Briskey, 258 B.R. 473 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2001); and In re Carlsen, 63 B.R. 706 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1986).

In light of this ample authority, Persolve’s failure to order the release of the Funds from the Sheriff’s possession was a violation of the automatic stay.

C. Whether the Violation was Willful and Resulting Damages

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1), "an individual injured by any willful violation of a

Page 72 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley



stay provided by this section shall recover actual damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, and, in appropriate circumstances, may recover punitive damages." A prima facie case under section 362(k) requires a showing (1) by an individual debtor of (2) injury from (3) a willful (4) violation of the stay. In re Fernandez, 227 B.R. 174, 181 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1998).

"[T]he willfulness test for automatic stay violations merely requires that: (1) the creditor know of the automatic stay; and (2) the actions that violate the stay be intentional." Morris v. Peralta, 317 B.R. 381, 389 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2004) (citing Eskanos v. Adler, P.C. v. Leetien, 309 F.3d 1210, 1215 (9th Cir. 2002)). "Once a creditor has knowledge of the bankruptcy, it is deemed to have knowledge of the automatic stay." In re Breul, 533 B.R. 782, 787-88 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2015) (citing In re Ramirez, 183 B.R. 583, 589 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995)).

Here, at least by the time Persolve filed its first proof of claim, on August 23, 2018, Persolve had knowledge of Debtor’s bankruptcy case. In addition, Persolve knew of the existence of the Writ, having attached the Writ as support for its claim. On its face, the Writ directs the Sheriff "to enforce the judgment described below with daily interest and your costs as provided by law." Writ, p. 1. Consequently, Persolve was on notice about the fact that Debtor had filed for bankruptcy protection and that the Writ would result in garnishment of Debtor’s wages. At that point, Persolve had an affirmative duty to halt any efforts to enforce the Writ. Persolve did not.

Persolve contends it should be exonerated from the consequences of § 362(k) because it did not know that the Sheriff garnished and held the Funds. However, Persolve knew from the inception of this case that such garnishment was forthcoming because of Persolve’s filing of the Writ. On that knowledge, Persolve had an affirmative duty to stop any such garnishment. That Persolve did not know exactly when the Sheriff would garnish the wages is not pertinent to Persolve’s efforts to prevent the garnishment.

In any event, even if Persolve’s ignorance about the Sheriff’s garnishment would serve to absolve it of sanctions, which it does not, Debtor’s evidence demonstrates that Persolve knew the Sheriff was holding the Funds prior to Debtor’s filing of the Motion. As such, Persolve’s refusal to order the release of the Funds after August 7, 2019, when Debtor’s counsel requested release of the Funds, was a willful violation of the automatic stay.

Page 73 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley



In light of the above, Debtor is entitled to reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred obtaining the release of the Funds and prosecuting her request of damages. Because Debtor did not attach the itemized statement until filing the Supplemental Reply, Persolve has not had an opportunity to respond to the reasonableness of the requested fees and costs. In addition, Debtor did not authenticate the itemized fee and cost statement. Consequently, the Court will continue this hearing for Debtor to provide evidence of her damages, such as by authenticating Exhibit D to the Supplemental Reply in a declaration, and for Persolve to have an opportunity to respond only to the reasonableness of the request for damages.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court holds that Persolve’s failure to order the release of the Funds in response to Debtor's post-petition demand was a willful violation of the automatic stay.

The Court will continue this hearing to 11:00 a.m. on February 11, 2020. No later than January 14, 2020, Debtor must file and serve a declaration authenticating its request for attorneys’ fees and costs. No later than January 28, 2020, Persolve must file and serve any objection on the basis of the reasonableness of the request for damages. The Court will not entertain any additional briefing on any issue other than the reasonableness of Debtor’s incurred attorneys’ fees and costs. Should the parties file a stipulation and lodge an order agreeing to an amount of damages, the Court will take the continued hearing off calendar.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Alba Interiano Represented ByAnthony Obehi Egbase

Trustee(s):


Page 74 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMAlba Interiano1:18-11680 Chapter 13

#108.00 Motion re: objection to claim number 3 by claimant Persolve Legal Group

108Docket

Overrule.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 3, 2018, Alba Interiano ("Debtor") filed a chapter 13 petition. On September 19, 2019, Persolve Legal Group ("Persolve") filed an amended proof of claim no. 3-1 in the amount of $59,474.22 based on a credit card debt. In the proof of claim, Persolve indicated that the claim is secured by an execution lien pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 700.140(b). Persolve also noted that it levied Debtor’s bank account on April 24, 2018.

To the amended proof of claim, Persolve attached a Writ of Execution, dated March 13, 2018 (the "Writ of Execution"). The Writ of Execution is based on a judgment entered on September 18, 2003 and renewed on September 17, 2013.

On November 6, 2019, Debtor filed an objection to Persolve’s claim (the "Objection") [doc. 108]. The Objection is based on two arguments: (A) first, Debtor asserts that Persolve has not provided sufficient documentation of its claim against Debtor; and (B) second, Debtor states that she believes she may have been a victim of identity theft and never incurred the debt Persolve claims against the estate.

On November 26, 2019, Persolve filed an opposition to the Objection (the "Opposition") [doc. 111]. In the Opposition, Persolve contends that Debtor has ignored the notices of the judgment and the renewal of the judgment for almost 15 years; Persolve argues that Debtor is now barred from setting aside the judgment under California law. Persolve also attaches the judgment against debtor, dated September 18, 2003 (the "Judgment"), and the renewed judgment, dated September 17, 2013 (the "Renewed Judgment"). Declaration of Michael H. Raichelson, ¶¶ 5, 9, Exhibits D, H. Debtor has not timely filed a response to the Opposition.

Tentative Ruling:

Page 75 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley



II. ANALYSIS

11 U.S.C. § 502(a) provides that a proof of claim is deemed allowed, unless a party in interest objects. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f) provides that a proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with the rules constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. See also Local Bankruptcy Rule 3007-1(c) ("an objection to claim must be supported by admissible evidence sufficient to overcome the evidentiary effect of a properly documented proof of claim").

"To defeat the claim, the objector must come forward with sufficient evidence and show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell v. Anchor Const. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted). "If the objector produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times upon the claimant." Id. (internal citations omitted); In re Laptops Etc. Corp., 164 B.R. 506, 522 (Bankr. D. Md. 1993) (burden shifts to claimant, who has ultimate burden of persuasion as to validity of its claim, only "upon objection to the claim coupled with the admission of probative evidence which tends to sufficiently rebut the prima facie validity of the claim"); see also In re Campbell, 336 B.R. 430, 436 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2005) ("Objections without substance are inadequate to disallow claims, even if those claims lack the documentation required by Rule 3001(c).").

Here, Debtor raises two issues. The first is that Persolve did not provide sufficient documentation to supports its claim. However, in order to have a claim disallowed, Debtor needs to raise a sufficient legal or factual basis for disallowance. As noted above, a claim cannot be disallowed simply because the proof of claim lacks prima facie validity. See Campbell, 336 B.R. at 436. In any event, Persolve did attach documentation to its proof of claim, namely, the Writ of Execution.

Debtor also states that she believes she was a victim of identity theft because she did not apply for the subject credit card. Whether or not this is true, Persolve has now supplemented the record with the Judgment and the Renewed Judgment. The Judgment, the Renewed Judgment and the Writ of Execution name Debtor as the

Page 76 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley



individual liable for the debt at issue. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1738, federal courts must give full faith and credit to judgments of state courts. See also Kremer v. Chem. Const. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 485, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 1899, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982) ("In our system of jurisprudence the usual rule is that merits of a legal claim once decided in a court of competent jurisdiction are not subject to redetermination in another forum.").

Given that the state court entered the Judgment and the Renewed Judgment, this Court does not have the power to nullify or amend the judgments. The Court makes no determination regarding the rights of the parties under state law; the parties may assert such rights before the state court. At this time, Persolve has a judgment against Debtor. As such, Debtor has not met her burden of negating Persolve’s claim against the estate.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court will overrule the Objection.

Persolve must submit an order within seven (7) days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Alba Interiano Represented ByAnthony Obehi Egbase

Trustee(s):


Page 77 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMJoseph Lisi and Cynthia Lisi1:19-11998 Chapter 13

#109.00 Motion re: objection to claim number 4 by claimant Heriberto Perez

25Docket

I. BACKGROUND

On March 20, 2018, Heriberto Perez filed a complaint in state court (the "State Court Complaint") against Joseph Lisi and Cynthia Lisi ("Debtors"), initiating state court case BC698597 (the "State Court Action"). Objection to Claim [doc. 28], Exhibit 1. Through the State Court Complaint, Mr. Perez asserts that Debtors are liable for the wrongful death of a minor based on a theory of inadequate supervision. Id.

On August 9, 2019, Debtors filed a chapter 13 petition. On October 8, 2019, Mr. Perez filed proof of claim no. 4-1, asserting an unsecured claim in the amount of $2,010,000 against the estate. The proof of claim is based on Mr. Perez’s claim of wrongful death against Debtors.

On October 18, 2019, Debtors filed the Objection [doc. 25]. In the Objection, Debtors request that the Court disallow Mr. Perez’s claim on the basis that Debtors did not have a legal duty to supervise. On November 25, 2019, Mr. Perez filed an opposition to the Objection (the "Opposition") [doc. 28], asserting that Debtors did have a duty of supervision and requesting that the Court overrule the Objection or set a hearing on the issue of damages. On December 3, 2019, Debtors filed a reply to the Opposition (the "Reply") [doc. 30], reiterating that Mr. Perez has not established a claim against the estate.

II. ANALYSIS

28 U.S.C. § 157 delineates the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction as follows—

(b)(1) Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11, and may enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject to review under section 158 of this title.

Tentative Ruling:

Page 78 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMJoseph Lisi and Cynthia LisiCONT... Chapter 13

(b)(2) core proceedings include, but are not limited to--

(B) allowance and disallowance of claims against the estate or exemptions from property of the estate, and estimation of claims or interests for the purposes of confirming a plan under chapter 11, 12 or 13 of title 11 but not the liquidation or estimation of contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort or wrongful death claims against the estate for purposes of distribution in a case under title 11. . . .

(emphasis added). Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5)—

The district court shall order that personal injury tort and wrongful death claims shall be tried in the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending, or in the district court in the district in which the claim arose, as determined by the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending.

In light of these statutes, this Court does not have the authority to liquidate Mr. Perez’s wrongful death claim. To liquidate the claim, the parties may file a motion to withdraw the reference to pursue this matter before the district court, or the parties may request relief from the automatic stay to proceed with the State Court Action.

III. CONCLUSION

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (b)(5), this Court will not liquidate the wrongful death claim. The parties should be prepared to discuss whether they prefer pursuing this matter in district court or state court, as well as dates and deadlines by which they will either request withdrawal of the reference or seek relief from the automatic stay.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joseph Lisi Represented ByDavid S Hagen

Page 79 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMJoseph Lisi and Cynthia LisiCONT... Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):Cynthia Lisi Represented By

David S Hagen

Trustee(s):


Page 80 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMJohn Jones1:19-12568 Chapter 13

#110.00 Motion re: objection to claim number 1 by Cavalry SPV I, LLC

Case dismissed 10/28/19

12Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: Case dismissed on 10/28/19 [doc. 14]. The motion is moot.

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

John Jones Represented ByChristopher J Langley

Trustee(s):


Page 81 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMGil Loera1:16-10314 Chapter 13

#111.00 Order to show cause why debtor's counsel should not be sanctioned for failure to appear at hearing on trustee's motion to dismiss

32Docket

On August 28, 2019, the chapter 13 trustee (the "Trustee") filed a motion to dismiss Gil Loera’s ("Debtor") case for failure to submit all tax returns ("Motion to Dismiss") [doc. 30]. On November 12, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. Debtor’s counsel did not appear.

On November 12, 2019, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Debtors’ Counsel Should Not be Sanctioned for Failure to Appear at Hearing on Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss (the "OSC") [doc. 32], on the grounds that Debtor’s counsel failed to appear at the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1(u)(1). Debtor’s counsel was ordered to explain his failure to appear and file and serve on Debtor a written response to the OSC no later than November 26, 2019.

On November 25, 2019, Debtor’s counsel timely filed his response ("Response") [doc. 36]. In his Response, Debtor’s counsel states that missing the hearing was not intentional and was a complete oversight on his part. ¶ 2. Debtor’s counsel also states that he has attempted to contact Debtor regarding the Motion to Dismiss, but Debtor has not responded. ¶ 3.

If Debtor’s counsel or an appearance attorney appears at the continued Motion to Dismiss hearing on December 10, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., then the Court may discharge the OSC. However, if no appearance is made at the continued Motion to Dismiss hearing, the Court may consider imposing sanctions on Debtor’s counsel.

Tentative Ruling:

Page 82 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMGil LoeraCONT... Chapter 13

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gil Loera Represented ByDaniel King

Trustee(s):


Page 83 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMJose Orcia Ramirez1:17-11135 Chapter 13

#112.00 Order to show cause why debtor's counsel should not be sanctioned for failure to appear at hearing on trustee's motion to dismiss

43Docket

On September 20, 2019, the chapter 13 trustee (the "Trustee") filed a motion to dismiss Jose Orcia Ramirez’s ("Debtor") case for failure to submit all tax returns ("Motion to Dismiss") [doc. 40]. On November 12, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. Debtor’s counsel did not appear.

On November 12, 2019, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Debtors’ Counsel Should Not be Sanctioned for Failure to Appear at Hearing on Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss (the "OSC") [doc. 43], on the grounds that Debtor’s counsel failed to appear at the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1(u)(1). Debtor’s counsel was ordered to explain her failure to appear and file and serve on Debtor a written response to the OSC no later than November 26, 2019.

On November 26, 2019, Debtor’s counsel timely filed her response ("Response") [doc. 46]. However, Debtor’s counsel served the Response at Debtor’s old mailing address, rather than his current mailing address [See doc. 20, Notice of Change of Address]. In her Response, Debtor’s counsel states that she has attempted to contact Debtor regarding the Motion to Dismiss, but Debtor has not responded [doc. 46 at ¶ 5]. Debtor’s counsel states that she emailed the Trustee’s counsel the day before the hearing to inform the Trustee that Debtor’s counsel did not have payments and would be unable to address the deficiency. Id. at ¶ 7. Because she emailed the Trustee’s counsel, Debtor’s counsel states that she mistakenly thought that an appearance was not required at the hearing. Id. at ¶ 8.

If Debtor’s counsel or an appearance attorney appears at the continued Motion to Dismiss hearing on December 10, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., then the Court may discharge the OSC. However, if no appearance is made at the continued Motion to Dismiss

Tentative Ruling:

Page 84 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMJose Orcia RamirezCONT... Chapter 13

hearing, the Court may consider imposing sanctions on Debtor’s counsel.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose Orcia Ramirez Represented ByHasmik Jasmine Papian

Trustee(s):


Page 85 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMAdan Antonio Salazar and Adriana Salazar1:19-10332 Chapter 13

#113.00 Order to show cause why debtor's counsel should not be sanctioned for failure to appear at confirmation hearing

45Docket

On November 12, 2019, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Debtors’ Counsel Should Not be Sanctioned for Failure to Appear at Confirmation Hearing(the "OSC") [doc. 45], on the grounds that the debtors’ counsel failed to appear at the confirmation hearing as required by LBR 3015-1(d). The debtors’ counsel was ordered to explain his failure to appear and file and serve on the debtors a written response to the OSC no later than November 26, 2019.

The debtors’ counsel timely filed a response [doc. 50]. However, contrary to the OSC, the debtors’ counsel did not serve his response on the debtors at the correct address. If the debtors’ counsel or an appearance attorney appears at the continued confirmation hearing on December 10, 2019 at 9:30 a.m., the Court may discharge the OSC. However, if no appearance is made at the continued confirmation hearing, the Court may consider imposing sanctions on the debtors’ counsel.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Adan Antonio Salazar Represented ByMajid Safaie

Joint Debtor(s):

Adriana Salazar Represented ByMajid Safaie

Trustee(s):


Page 86 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMKenneth C. Scott1:18-13024 Chapter 13

#114.00 Status conference re: creditor H. Samuel Hopper's motion to dismiss debtor Kenneth C. Scott's chapter 13 petition

fr. 7/17/19; 9/4/19; 10/2/19; 10/16/19; 11/13/19

70Docket

On November 20, 2019, the debtor filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of bad faith [doc. 174]. That motion is set for hearing at 2:30 p.m. on February 5, 2020.

On November 26, 2019, the debtor and Mr. Hopper filed a joint status report (the "Status Report") [doc. 181]. In the Status Report, Mr. Hopper states that he intends to take written discovery, including interrogatories, requests for admission and document requests, and depositions of the debtor, Niaz Khnai, JoAnn Scott and the person most knowledgeable at Fenton & Ross, CPA.

The debtor contends that this discovery is not appropriate because: (1) the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") apply to adversaries under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP"), but not the main bankruptcy case; (2) Niaz Khnai, JoAnn Scott and the person most knowledgeable at Fenton & Ross, CPA are not under the jurisdiction of the Court; and (3) the debtor will not waive any privileges.

First, pursuant to FRBP 9014, the rules governing discovery in FRCP 26 and 28 through 37, which are incorporated into FRBP 7026 and 7028 through 7037, apply to contested matters. This motion is a contested matter. As such, these discovery rules apply to this dispute.

Second, Niaz Khnai, JoAnn Scott and the person most knowledgeable at Fenton & Ross, CPA do not need to be parties to the dispute in order for them to be subject to a deposition, through an issued subpoena.

Finally, once Mr. Hopper propounds any discovery request, if the debtor or a third party believes the discovery is subject to any privilege - following compliance with

Tentative Ruling:

Page 87 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMKenneth C. ScottCONT... Chapter 13

Local Bankruptcy Rule 7026-1(c) - a motion for a protective order may be filed.

Tentative Ruling from November 13, 2019

The Court having assessed, among other things, the first amended complaint in the related adversary proceeding, the defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, the objection to movant's claim, the validity of debtor's exemption claims (to which the movant objected) and the progress in the debtor's bankruptcy case, including the status of the debtor's proposed amended chapter 13 plan, the Court intends to deny the motion, based on the analysis set forth in the Court's earlier tentantive ruling.

What further evidence, if any, does the movant intend to submit, and when?

Tentative Ruling from May 14, 2019

For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 18, 2018, Kenneth C. Scott (the "Debtor") filed a voluntary chapter 13 petition. The Debtor has no prior bankruptcy filings.

Prior to the Debtor filing his petition, on November 7, 2018, Samuel Hopper filed a complaint in the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles against the Debtor for, among other things, various wage claims, civil penalties, statutory penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees and costs (the "State Court Action") [doc. 70, Exh. 1]. On December 11, 2018, the Debtor was apparently served with the summons and the complaint in the State Court Action [doc. 20, Exh. 2].

In his schedule A/B [doc. 1], the Debtor did not list an interest in any real property. The Debtor listed an interest in personal property with an aggregate value of $126,817.28. In his amended schedule C [doc. 35], the Debtor claimed exemptions in $126,817.28 of that personal property.

Page 88 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley



In his schedule D [doc. 1], the Debtor did not list any secured creditors. In his schedule E/F [doc. 1], the Debtor listed nonpriority unsecured claims totaling $123,841.73. Those nonpriority unsecured claims consisted of: (1) a $9,069.00 claim in favor of Bank of America for a revolving credit account; (2) a $30,000.00 claim in favor of Mr. Hopper for the State Court Action; (3) a $35,600.00 claim in favor of JoAnn Scott, who is the Debtor’s mother; and (4) a $49,172.73 claim in favor of Johanna Scott for an obligation arising out of a separation agreement. In his statement of financial affairs ("SOFA") [doc. 1], the Debtor indicated that he was married.

As of May 9, 2019, five creditors have filed claims in the Debtor’s case. American Honda Finance Corporation filed claim 1, which indicates that it holds a secured claim in the amount of $19,469.73 based on a lease. Bank of America, N.A. filed claim 2, which indicated that it holds a nonpriority unsecured claim in the amount of $8,944.00 based on a consumer credit card. Mr. Hopper filed claim 3-2, which indicates that he holds a nonpriority unsecured claim in the amount of $206,975.25. The Debtor has filed an objection to Mr. Hopper’s claim. JoAnn Scott filed claim 4, which indicates that she holds a nonpriority unsecured claim in the amount of $35,600.00 based on a contract. Johanna Scott filed claim 5, which indicates that she holds a nonpriority unsecured claim in the amount of $49,172.00 based on a marital separation agreement.

In his petition [doc. 1], the Debtor indicated that he rents his residence. In his schedule G [doc. 1], the Debtor listed two unexpired leases: a vehicle lease with American Honda Finance and a residential lease with Decon Corp.

In his schedules I and J [doc. 1], the Debtor represented that his monthly income is $4,255.87 and his monthly expenses are $3,983.05, leaving net monthly income of $272.82. The Debtor indicated that he is employed as a therapist at My Private Practice. In his schedule A/B, the Debtor indicated that he owns a 100% interest in My Private Practice.

On March 6, 2019, the Debtor filed an amended SOFA [doc. 34]. In the amended SOFA, the Debtor indicates that he has an interest in My Private Practice and Kenneth Scott-Psy’d, Inc. The Debtor represents that Kenneth Scott-Psy’d, Inc. is the same as

Page 89 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley



My Private Practice.

On December 18, 2018, the Debtor filed a chapter 13 plan [doc. 2]. The chapter 13 trustee and Mr. Hopper filed objections to that plan [docs. 27 and 28]. On March 6, 2019, the Debtor filed an amended chapter 13 plan (the "Plan") [doc. 31]. In the Plan, the Debtor proposes to make plan payments in the amount of $272.82 per month (all of the Debtor’s net monthly income, according to his schedule J) for 60 months. The Plan is a 5.52% plan. As of May 9, 2019, the chapter 13 trustee has not objected to confirmation of the Plan. However, Mr. Hopper has [doc. 77].

On April 19, 2019, Mr. Hopper filed the Motion [doc. 70]. Mr. Hopper did not serve the debtor and all creditors as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1(q)(3). In the Motion, Mr. Hopper argues that the Court should dismiss the case based on the Debtor’s bad faith.

On April 30, 2019, the Debtor filed an opposition to the Motion (the "Opposition") [doc. 73]. On May 7, 2019, Mr. Hopper filed a reply to the Opposition (the "Reply") [doc. 84].

II. ANALYSIS

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c):

Except as provided in subsection (f) of this section, on request of a party in interest or the United States trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 of this title, or may dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, for cause, including—

(1) unreasonable delay by the debtor that is prejudicial to creditors;

(2) nonpayment of any fees and charges required under chapter 123 of title 28;

Page 90 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley


11:00 AMKenneth C. ScottCONT... Chapter 13(3) failure to file a plan timely under section 1321 of this title;

(4) failure to commence making timely payments under section 1326 of this title;

(5) denial of confirmation of a plan under section 1325 of this title and denial of a request made for additional time for filing another plan or a modification of a plan;

(6) material default by the debtor with respect to a term of a confirmed plan;

(7) revocation of the order of confirmation under section 1330 of this title, and denial of confirmation of a modified plan under section 1329 of this title;

(8) termination of a confirmed plan by reason of the occurrence of a condition specified in the plan other than completion of payments under the plan;

(9) only on request of the United States trustee, failure of the debtor to file, within fifteen days, or such additional time as the court may allow, after the filing of the petition commencing such case, the information required by paragraph (1) of section 521(a);

(10) only on request of the United States trustee, failure to timely file the information required by paragraph (2) of section 521(a); or

(11) failure of the debtor to pay any domestic support obligation that first becomes payable after the date of the filing of the petition.

11 U.S.C. § 1307(c). In deciding whether a chapter 13 case should be dismissed or converted, courts apply a two-step analysis. "First, it must be determined that there is ‘cause’ to act. Second, once a determination of ‘cause’ has been made, a choice must be made between conversion and dismissal based on the ‘best interests of the creditors

Page 91 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley



and the estate.’" Nelson v Meyer (In re Nelson), 343 B.R. 671, 675 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2006).

Here, Mr. Hopper does not argue for dismissal based on any of the enumerated causes listed in § 1307(c). Rather, Mr. Hopper argues that bad faith is additional cause for dismissal. A chapter 13 case filed in bad faith may be dismissed for cause under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c). In re Leavitt, 171 F.3d 1219, 1224–25 (9th Cir. 1999); In re Eisen, 14 F3d 469, 470 (9th Cir. 1994). Bad faith is determined by evaluating the totality of circumstances, including the following factors: (1) whether the debtor misrepresented facts in his petition or plan, unfairly manipulated the Bankruptcy Code, or otherwise filed his chapter 13 petition or plan in an inequitable manner; (2) the debtor's history of filings and dismissals; (3) whether the debtor only intended to defeat state court litigation; (4) whether egregious behavior is present. See In re Leavitt, 171 F.3d 1219, 1224 (9th Cir. 1999). Mr. Hopper’s main arguments are that: (1) the Debtor filed his petition to avoid litigating the State Court Action; and (2) the Debtor filed false or incomplete schedules.

Regarding Mr. Hopper’s first argument, "[w]hile a debtor's resort to bankruptcy to improve his or her position in pending litigation is relevant to the analysis, that single factor is not determinative in resolving the good faith issue." In re King, No. BAP/AZ-07-1317-PAJUK, 2008 WL 8444814, at *5 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Mar. 12, 2008) (citing In re Powers, 135 B.R. 980, 992 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1991)).

Here, it does not appear that the Debtor has filed his petition for an improper purpose. Although the Debtor filed his petition shortly after being served with the complaint in the State Court Action, it does not appear that the Debtor filed this case only to defeat the State Court Action. After being implicated in litigation, many debtors file bankruptcy petitions to address their debts, including those that are disputed and not yet liquidated.

Regarding Mr. Hopper’s second argument, the evidence does not show significant inaccuracies in the Debtor’s schedules. Mr. Hopper argues that the scheduled claims in favor of the Debtor’s mother and estranged wife are possibly fraudulent. Mr. Hopper contends, among other things, that at the time of filing the Motion, neither the Debtor’s mother nor his estranged wife had filed claims. A scheduled creditor not

Page 92 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley



filing a proof of claim does not necessarily indicate fraud. Further, at this point, the Debtor’s mother and his estranged wife have filed proofs of claim. Mr. Hopper also argues that the Debtor has not listed Kenneth Scott-Psy’d, Inc. on any of the Debtor’s schedules, either as an asset or as his employer. However, the Debtor did list Kenneth Scott-Psy’d, Inc. in his amended SOFA. Mr. Hopper also argues that the Debtor has claimed improper exemptions in his personal property. Mr. Hopper has filed an objection to the Debtor’s exemptions which is set for hearing on June 11, 2019. At that time, the Court will address Mr. Hopper’s arguments regarding the Debtor’s claims of exemption.

The Debtor does not have a prior history of any bankruptcy proceedings. Mr. Hopper has not shown that the Debtor has unfairly manipulated the Bankruptcy Code. Further, the Debtor does not appear to have engaged in egregious behavior. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion.

III. CONCLUSION

Deny.

The Debtor must submit the order within seven (7) days.

Tentative ruling regarding the evidentiary objections to the identified paragraphs in the Declarations set forth below:

The Debtor’s Objection to the Declaration of Daniel Jett [doc. 74]paras. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8: overruledpara. 15: sustainedExhs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7: overruled

Party Information

Page 93 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM



San Fernando Valley



Debtor(s):Kenneth C. Scott Represented By

Arash Shirdel

Trustee(s):


Page 94 of 9412/9/2019 1:26:20 PM

Documents

United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of Californiaecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/Posted/VK_121019.pdfSan Fernando Valley Tuesday, December 10, 2019 Hearing Room 301 10:30 AM